beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.16 2015노1303

지방교육자치에관한법률위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

The Defendant is a person who was elected as a candidate at the D Superintendent’s re-election (hereinafter “re-election in 2012”) conducted on December 19, 2012, and was released to the D Superintendent’s Office of Education (hereinafter “instant election”) conducted on June 4, 2014, but was dissipated.

At the time of re-election in 2012, the Defendant was solely inferred from the organization “E” as “E” to “E”, and the Defendant expressed himself as “E”.

At the same time, the media reported Z, AA, and G as “Remuneration candidate” in addition to the Defendant. However, both the election commission and other candidates did not put into question the expression “Remuneration candidate” used by the Defendant.

On March 20, 2014, E(hereinafter referred to as “E”) was launched for the purpose of election of ‘the candidate for the 17th City/Do superintendent of education' throughout the country.

E has individually contacted Defendant, F, G, N, etc. with the intent to participate in the instant election and has received an application for participation in candidate unification in particular on April 17, 2014;

4. 25. In 25. the Standing Representative decided F to participate in the candidate unification.

However, F rejected participation on the ground that the provision on the procedure of simplification is unreasonable finally.

Ultimately, the defendant and N only applied for participation in the candidate unification of E.

The N renounces the participation in the middle of May 1, 2014, and E, on May 12, 2014, the Defendant was solely replaced by the D Superintendent of the Office of Education as “the remuneration candidate.”

At the above memorial site, Ndo attended, and the defendant and commemorative shooting were made.

Since then, Defendant, F, and AC shall be May 15, 2014; G shall be

5. Each of the instant elections registered as a candidate on 17.1

The Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s “Remuneration Candidate” and F’s objection to the election campaign material directly for election campaign to L, who is the head of the public relations office around May 12, 2014 or around 15.