1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below recognized the fact that Defendant 1 found Defendant 1 as an office of the election commission in the East Sea and assaulted the Nonindicted Party at the same time in charge of the election management affairs and inflicted an injury on the Nonindicted Party. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence, as

Meanwhile, as alleged by Defendant 1, even if the Nonindicted Party was aware of whether the vehicle used by Defendant 1 was reported as a campaign speech or interview vehicle in monitoring and controlling the violation of the Public Official Election Act, such circumstance alone does not constitute legitimate act or self-defense, or an act of assaulting the Nonindicted Party at the Election Commission’s office and causing injury at the same time constitutes an act of political party or self-defense, or an act of assaulting the employees of the Election Commission. The grounds for appeal related thereto cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Article 79(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides, “A candidate, etc. and social members may use a motor vehicle and its loudspeaker system attached thereto in accordance with the following classifications for a campaign speech or interview at an open place.” Article 79(3)1 of the same Act provides, “A candidate, etc. and social members may use a motor vehicle and its loudspeaker system attached thereto for a presidential election, and a loudspeaker system attached thereto shall be limited to one unit and one unit for each candidate City/Do and Gu/Si/Gun election campaign liaison office, respectively. Paragraph (6) of the same Article provides that a motor vehicle and loudspeaker system shall be marked as prescribed by Regulations of the National Election Commission, and a poster, election campaign bulletin, written campaign promises, and candidate’s photograph shall be attached to the motor vehicle, and Article 256(4)8 provides that a person who has made a campaign speech or interview at an open place in contravention of Article 79(3) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding 2 million won where the campaign speech or loudspeaker system is used directly for an interview or an interview or debate at an open place.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the defendants reported to the Dong-si election commission (number 1 omitted) a motor vehicle with a loudspeaker system attached to the Dong-si election campaign liaison office for a candidate for the 17th presidential election, which is located in the Dong-si election campaign liaison office for the 17th presidential election, and attached the sign, propaganda poster, etc., and used at all times for the campaign speech or interview at an open place, and the campaign speech or interview. Defendant 1 posted a motor vehicle along with (number 1 omitted) motor vehicle (number 1 omitted) at the speech site of this case and (number 2 omitted) a campaign speech to support the candidate on the door-site by using a loudspeaker system attached to the above motor vehicle. Thus, if the facts are identical, in addition to the (number 1 omitted), Defendant 1 should be deemed to fall under the case of restricting the use of a loudspeaker system attached to the motor vehicle and a loudspeaker system attached thereto for the campaign speech at an open place in violation of the provisions of Article 17 (1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged because it constitutes a case where a speech was made in violation of Article 79 (3) of the Public Official Election Act only when two loudspeakers are used at the same time for a direct speech. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 79 (3) of the Public Official Election Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remainder of the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the part of the judgment of not guilty against the Defendants should be reversed, and since the part of the judgment of not guilty against Defendant 1 is concurrent crimes with the remaining guilty part under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in whole and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)