Law Firm D, Attorney E

Law Firm F&L, Attorney G

The issues of the facts charged in this case in the participatory trial of this case, which was conducted through the defendant's application for the participatory trial and the selection procedure of the jury, are different in terms of ① whether the 17 Tweet posts of this case, under the premise or suggesting that "H candidate participated in the theft of the implicit or stolen silent of this case," ② whether the above facts are false, ③ whether the defendant was false, ③ whether the defendant was aware of the falsity, ④ whether the purpose of the sweak and the intention of the sweak, ④ whether there were grounds for the illegality of the public interest, and the outcome of the jury's unanimous verdict differs.In this case, whether the other party's will should be bound, or if the other party's opinion should be harmonized with each other's opinion, and the conclusion is appropriate.

2. Judgment of this court on the facts charged of this case

All state powers, including the judicial power, should be taken from the people, and the power should be exercised for the people. Therefore, judges who exist in order to realize the ideology of rule of law by delegation of judicial power from the people have the constitutional responsibility to judge according to the Constitution, laws and professional conscience.

The professional conscience of a judge is formed by a sound social common sense, such as the Constitution and law, or customary law, established legal principles like the Supreme Court precedents, and social practice, which are called “social norms.” This professional conscience is the core value of a judge who cannot waive in any case as the inherent area of a judge, which is the last part of the realization of a law-oriented society. In light of the professional conscience of the full bench, it is examined by issues as to whether the facts charged in this case are guilty.

First of all, the 17 Tweet posts of this case are linked to time and overall with each other under the single criminal intent of the defendant, under the premise or suggesting that "H candidate was involved in the theft of the implied theft of this case or a stolen silent", and as a whole, it can be deemed as a statement by including one of the above facts, and it constitutes the publication or publicly stated facts subject to the determination of the sexual elements of the crime of publishing false facts or the crime of using one's own secret secret.

Then, regarding the establishment of the crime of publishing false facts, the fact that the H candidate involved in the theft of the instant implied or stolen silent is not confirmed by the investigation result or trial, etc., and the defendant who raised such suspicion is true in accordance with the principle of allocation of burden of proof. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the materials presented by the defendant and his/her defense counsel alone are proven that the above truth is true. Thus, the above truth of the truth is a legally false fact.

However, in order to constitute the crime of publishing false facts, it must be perceived that the candidate was aware that he was involved in the theft of the silent of this case or that he was guilty of a stolen silent. However, in light of the source and content of the materials presented by the defendant and his defense counsel and the fact that the authenticity of the above facts is unclear, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant did not make any effort to confirm the truth in addition to the time of the publication, and that there was a false perception.

Therefore, the part of the charge of publishing false facts among the facts charged in the instant case is not sufficient to prove the criminal intent.

Furthermore, the public interest of the Defendant’s verification of the status of the Defendant at the time of the publication of this case, in light of the status of the Defendant at the time of J election, the time of publication, the time of publication, the Defendant’s criminal conduct before and after the publication, etc. is merely a nominal motive, and the public interest of the verification of the status of the Defendant’s candidate for the purpose of selecting the H candidate for the purpose of evading the H candidate, and thus, is unlawful by deviating from the limit of the freedom of expression permitted by the law.

Therefore, the defendant's act of posting the 17 tweet of this case constitutes the crime of non-election against the candidate under Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act, and the defendant should be punished in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

3. The actual binding force and limits of the jury's verdict of innocence by unanimous verdict and verdict of innocence;

On the other hand, in the participatory trial of this case, the jury made a verdict of innocence as well as the part concerning the violation of false information publication as a candidate's non-guilty crime as a whole. In other words, since the facts charged of this case are not both crimes, the jury made a verdict of acquittal that "no criminal defendant shall be punished due to the facts charged of this case."

As such, if there is a conflict between the intention of both the full-time panel and the jury, the ideology of rule of law should be given priority to one of the other's intentions in the superior position, and the conflict between the ideological value of whether to give priority to the other's opinion or to the democratic legitimacy and the conflict between the other's opinion depends on the base.

The ultimate subject of the judgment on the participatory trial of this case under the relevant laws, such as the current Constitution, the Court Organization Act and the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials, etc., is composed of judges, and therefore the court will be ultimately responsible for the final judgment on the participatory trial of this case. Therefore, the above verdict with the recommended effect only does not legally bind the court's conviction contrary to this.

However, the jury’s opinion due to the increase in the snow of the general public should be deemed to be expressed with the meaning and will of the people who are the source of state power, and somewhat regional and aestheticly shows, and even if political colors appear to be strong, they should be respected and reflected as much as possible in the judgment. Furthermore, if the jury’s opinion exceeds the majority opinion, it is reasonable to reflect the purport and will of the jury as it is in the judgment.

This is in line with the legislative intent of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials introduced according to the will of the people in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary, and it follows the demands of the democratic society.

Accordingly, the jury verdict of the participatory trial of this case is considered to have a de facto binding force on this trial division.

However, if the jury’s opinion conflicts fundamentally with the professional conscience of a judge, even if the jury’s opinion is a whole-time juror’s opinion, it shall be binding only to the extent that it does not infringe on essential elements of the deliberation of the judge’s professional quantity, which cannot be waived as a reason for the existence of the judge.

This is the third way that is based on the principle of middle video students who actually realize the ideology of rule of law by responding to the request of democratic legitimacy of justice in the implementation and operation of the current participatory trial which does not adopt the American jury trial system.

In this regard, the Bill on Pre-Announcement of Legislation of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials, in principle, respects the jury's verdict in judging whether or not a judge has committed a crime, but the contents of a verdict are contrary to the Constitution, laws, orders, rules, rules, Supreme Court precedents, logic rules, or rule of experience or if there is any ground to believe that the contents of the verdict are contrary to the Constitution, laws, rules, rules, logic rules, or rule of experience or that the contents of the verdict are unreasonable, thereby clearly stating the limitation thereof. The essential part of the judge's professional conscience should vary depending on

As seen earlier, the facts charged in the instant case are issues such as whether the content is a factual fact, false fact, or false perception, whether there was an intention of deception and defamation, and whether there was a reason for excluding illegality for public interest. It is difficult for a juror, who is not a legal expert, to judge a crime from a legal point of view, and there is room for a judge to decide on a political position or political opinion of a juror, regional legal sentiment, and emotional sentiments in light of the nature of the case.

Therefore, in light of the legal stability principle that the interpretation and application of the law as a axis of the ideology of rule of law must be uniformly and equally in accordance with the established legal principles, the essential part of the judge’s professional conscience of this case is, at least, the legal evaluation part on the charge of the existence or absence of facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the jury’s opinion on the legal assessment of the charge of the existence or absence of the facts charged in the instant case cannot be bound by this full bench, and the remaining sentencing parts should be practically binding only on the remaining sentencing parts.

Therefore, it is reasonable to reflect the remaining part of the jury's verdict of innocence, which excludes the legal assessment of innocence all of the facts charged of this case, i.e., the legal and effective part that "the defendant does not be punished due to the facts charged of this case" in the judgment of this case to the maximum extent possible.

Therefore, the "act of the defendant is a crime, but it does not punish the defendant as a result," is contradictory to the other, but it comes into a practical compatible conclusion.

4. Conclusion and future legislative tasks are exempted from punishment in line with the final judgment of this Court. However, in a criminal trial, the sentence of exemption from punishment can only be imposed on the grounds that the applicable law provides for exemption from punishment, or there are grounds for exemption from punishment, such as legal self-denunciation, self-reliance, and kinship, and it does not appear that there exist such legal grounds or grounds for the sentence of exemption from punishment in this case.

Therefore, this court, which should respect the jury's verdict as much as possible and reflect it in sentencing, cannot choose another type of punishment, other than suspended sentence, which is the most adjacent to the punishment, as a crime within the framework of the current law.

Therefore, this court shall render a judgment against the defendant as follows.The part of the charge of publishing false facts among the charges in this case is about the operation form of the participatory trial, so long as it is found that the defendant is guilty of not guilty or a candidate's secret-for-the-counter crime, the sentence of a fine of KRW 1,00,000, which is the minimum punishment according to the sentencing guidelines is suspended. Under the current system of the current law, the trial court's conviction of the crime of whether or not a participatory trial is conducted and operated differs from the majority opinion of the jury, or in particular, it is more likely that the case differs from the majority opinion of the jury.In this case, the issue of which will be superior to either of the jury's opinion, or if the case is in harmony with the conclusion of this case is about the operation form of the participatory trial, and it is reasonable to establish a consensus by gathering various opinions of the people and resolve it through legislative decision.

The Defendant is a person who was the Chairman of the Joint Election Measures Committee for K-political L Candidates for the above election. As a result of the public opinion poll conducted until early December 2012, 201, the gap between the support rate of the Mparty H candidate and the L candidate that was going out of the above election was within the error scope.

Accordingly, the Defendant, on October 30, 201, stated that there was a part related to the H candidate among the contents of the MBP broadcast broadcasted on October 30, 201 that “I’s implied view designated as N, was missing at zero.” The Defendant, despite the fact that the above implied view was replaced several times after it was donated on October 1976, and theO was newly constructed and the failure to examine the management status of the Cultural Heritage Administration overlaps, the Defendant’s location was unknown through various routes, such as on the side, Q, and H National Assembly member’s side, and the Defendant, on the 10th anniversary of the fact that it was unknown on the Internet homepage of the Cultural Heritage Administration, announced that Q20 was not the only one-way candidate’s implied view that Q2 had been published on the 0th anniversary of the fact that Q20th anniversary of the fact that it was unknown at the time of such publication, and that it was not consistent with the Broadcasting Service’s publication.”

As such, the Defendant sent a notice on December 10, 2012 on the premise that, with the aim of preventing the election from being elected by lowering the support rate of the H candidate, the Defendant had access to the Internet at the home of the Defendant’s children located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and carried out the Defendant’s writing, “I’s implied leakage of the news NI’s intention” on the Defendant’s T. In U. regime, the Defendant posted 0 copy at the time of his election and the records that H had been kept thereafter, “The Cultural Heritage Administration has a record that he was a stolen cultural property,” and then, from December 10, 2012 to December 11 of the same year, 2012, 17 times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, on the premise that “I’s silent was stolen, stolen, or involved in an implied theft.” Accordingly, the Defendant abused the candidate by means of communications with the aim of preventing the election from being elected.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the witness V, W and X; 1. Statement of the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement against the defendant;

1. Written statements of the Y, Z, and AA;

1. Preparation and reporting of recording records;

1. Documents printed out in the Defendant T account;

1. Copies of each Internet press report;

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

§ 251. Selection of fine

1. The type to be suspended;

Fines 1,000,000 (the maximum penalty on the basis of sentencing within the scope of the applicable sentences under law)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day conversion)

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 1, 46, and 49 of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials, and respect for verdict of innocence by unanimous verdict of acquittal of jurors.

The defendant and defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Although the Defendant posted 17 comments on the Defendant T as stated in the facts charged, each of the 5-7, 9-12, and 14 published the list of crimes, this article calls for the Defendant’s explanation that he is responsible for the location of the I’s silent designated as a Bosnish N, and merely calls for the explanation of the candidate’s suspicion. However, it is merely a mere expression of opinion that is not a statement of fact. (b) The Defendant did not have an intention to prevent the Defendant from being elected. The Defendant believed that the contents of the comments inserted in the instant T were true, there was considerable reason to believe that they were true, and the contents of the comments inserted in the instant T were related to the public interest, and thus, there is no illegality in accordance with the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act.

2. Determination

The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the facts charged of this case is not accepted for the same reasons as the judgment of the court.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant, as stated in the above facts of crime, up to 17 times in total, posted a statement on the premise that he was guilty of stolen or involved in an implied theft of the I's intention, and thus, the defendant would be disadvantageous to the candidate by communication for the purpose of preventing him from being elected.

A false fact was published in relation to the person.

2. Determination

As seen in the part of the judgment of this court on the facts charged of this case, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act due to lack of proof of criminal intent. However, as long as it is found guilty of a violation of the Public Official Election Act in the judgment on the candidate's secret which is in a competitive relation, the judgment does not separately

A verdict of jury verdict and verdict of guilty or not guilty;

1. The point of publishing false facts;

Not guilty of all the seven jurors

2. Points of a candidate election;

Not guilty of all the seven jurors

Judge Kang Dong-hun

Judges Manyang

A person shall be appointed.