Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

A. The defendant (the part concerning the crime)

(i)Legal principles

㈎ 호별방문과 관련하여

Each government office and school (hereinafter “each government office and school of this case”) that the defendant visited by the defendant is open to many people, and thus, it is unlikely that they will interfere with cooling and reasonable judgment by putting the emotional and non-essential elements, such as parliamentary and recognition, etc., and there is little possibility of engaging in a fraudulent act in inducing purchase and understanding, and there is no risk of infringing privacy or normal performance of duties, and it is difficult to view that the candidates might interfere with the substantial equality of election campaign between the candidates who act in a flexible and unfavorable manner according to economic power or mobilization. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “house-to-door visit” under the Public Official Election Act, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part

㈏ 문자메시지 발송과 관련하여

The text message sent by the Defendant to the electorate (hereinafter “the instant text message”) was made in the extension line of the activities of the Chungcheong education power plant, and it is merely a formal letter that enhances the competitiveness of the Chungcheong education for the surrounding people, and does not constitute an election campaign because it is merely a formal letter of the meaning of gathering energy. Moreover, given that it is difficult to determine whether the instant text message was an election campaign or a formal activity, it is difficult to determine whether it was an election campaign or not, it ought to be viewed as an ordinary activity by applying the doctrine of criminal procedure, namely, “the benefit of the Defendant when the instant text message was sent.” Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

【Unjustifiable sentencing

The sentencing of the lower court (a fine of 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

(b) Public prosecutor;

(i)Legal principles

The judgment of the court below that Article 93 (1) of the Public Official Election Act does not apply to election campaigns by text messages is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

(1) In cases of an election campaign by means of text messages, information transmitted unilaterally by the sender shall not be deemed to have been acquired in the same way as an election campaign by means of Internet homepages, bulletin boards, toilets, e-mails, etc., and thus the communication of expression thereon cannot be necessarily guaranteed.

② The lower court determined that Article 93(1) proviso of Article 59 Subparag. 2 of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012) excluded from this Act due to Article 59 Subparag. 2 proviso of the same Act. However, the provisions of Articles 93(1) and 59 Subparag. 2 proviso of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374) are different in both the elements and scope of application, and thus, cannot be deemed as having a relationship of absorption or substantial crime. Therefore, in cases where the Defendant sent text messages falling under election campaign to electorates by means of automatic broadcast communication in violation of restrictions on the transmission of text messages, as seen in the instant case,

【Unjustifiable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below is too unjustifiable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to door-to-door visit:

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant is a preliminary candidate to the election commission of ○○○buk-do located in Cheongju-si on February 4, 2014 with respect to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education of ○○buk-do nationwide elections, and a person who registered as a candidate for the same election commission on May 15, 2014.

No person shall make a house-to-house visit for an election campaign.

Nevertheless, on February 5, 2014, the Defendant found the shoulder belt, which was read as “the preliminary candidate of the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education”, on the first floor of the △△△△△ Group located in the Chungcheongbuk-gun, △△△△△△△ Group, and sought support from his employees, stating that “the preliminary candidate of the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education is in personnel position. I have the right to new change the education of the Chungcheongbuk-gun. I have the right to interest. I have the right to new change the education of the Chungcheongbuk-gun. I have visited 24 offices of the △△△ Group and the government offices located in △△△ Group and △△△-si, where many unspecified civil petitions can not be freely visited, such as the list of crimes (1) from the above date to February 6, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant made a door-to-house visit for election campaign.

[Attachment] Doz.

The lower court determined that the act of visiting the instant case constituted “house-to-house visit” restricted by the Public Official Election Act by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances admitted by the admitted evidence:

① From among the respective offices of this case, the △△△ District Office, △△△ District Office, △△△ District Office, and △△ District Public Health Center are established with civil-petition offices, and △△ Office is in charge of civil affairs in administrative support. The above civil-petition offices and administrative support departments are free access by the general public, and other places are likely to make a reservation in advance or be allowed access by the public-petition offices.

(2) Each of the schools of this case (Seoul High School, △△ High School, △△ Elementary School) is not separately established in civil-petition offices, but there is an information center at the entrance of △ Middle School, and there is a device to control entry at the entrance of △△ Elementary School. In order to enter each of the above buildings, prior reservations shall be made, or a visiting certificate shall be issued after verifying the identity at the entrance.

(3) The possibility of visiting government offices or schools cannot be ruled out completely due to improper acts, such as purchase and inducement for understanding, and in particular, it is more so in light of the fact that the office of the head of government offices or schools is cut off by outside and by day.

(4) An act of visiting a government office or school may interfere with the duties of its employees and infringe on the peace of privacy.

(5) If such visits are permitted, candidates are likely to make excessive visits to government offices or schools.

【Court of Justice Park Jong-chul

㈎ 관련법리

The purpose of prohibiting door-to-door visits in Article 106 (1) of the Public Official Election Act is to: (a) the conversation in a place that is not open to the general public is likely to interfere with the cooling and reasonable judgment of electors by putting it on the emotional and non-essential elements, such as doubt or recognition; (b) there is a possibility that fraudulent acts such as purchase and inducement by interest, etc. through the passage of closed places may be committed; and (c) there is a concern that the elector may interfere with the peace and normal performance of his/her duties because he/she is allowed to make any unexpected visits from the candidate who is not aware of from the candidate; and (d) from the candidate's perspective, it is anticipated that there is no harm that it is difficult to guarantee the substantial equality of election campaign between the candidates, such as economic power or the mobilization of election campaign members favorable to the candidate who is excellent (see the Daegu High Court Decision 2007No388, Mar. 15, 2007).

Meanwhile, Article 106(2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that a person may appeal for support to a political party or candidate at a place where a ceremony of coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and funeral service is held, road, market, store, street, large store, meeting room, or other open places where many people pass and pass. This is premised on the fact that such a place falls under “house” as provided in Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act, but it is exceptionally permissible because such a place is not highly likely to cause harm to a door-to-door visit, such as the possibility of fraudulent acts such as purchase and inducement by interest, infringement of privacy, etc.

In light of the structure of Article 106 of the Public Official Election Act and the purport of prohibiting door-to-door visits, a door-to-door visits subject to door-door visits shall be widely accessible to the general public, or a place for business, etc. or a place attached thereto, which is not limited to the door-to-door visits and is not open to the public for free access. In determining whether a crime of door-door visits is established, various circumstances such as the structure of the place, use relation, public nature, and accessibility thereof, the specific control and management form of the occupant thereof, and concerns about harm caused by door-to-door visits shall be comprehensively considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14558, Jul. 8, 2010).

㈏ 학교 방문 부분에 대한 판단

(1) In light of the above legal principles, “No visit for election campaign” under Article 106 of the Public Official Election Act refers to a place which is not open to the majority of people, and is widely accessible, a place for business, etc., or a place attached thereto. The majority of the people mentioned here refer to an unspecified number of people who are not a specific number of people residing or working in the place and are allowed to enter the outside, not a specific number of people. Therefore, in a case where a public office is scheduled to enter and depart from an unspecified number of people by dealing with civil petition affairs or other similar services, and where no access is allowed unless there are special circumstances, the term “public place” under Article 106(2) of the Public Official Election Act refers to a place where many and unspecified people

D. As to each school of this case, the school is a place where education for students is conducted, and a person who is allowed to enter the school is limited to school personnel, students, parents, etc. who are working for the school, and in nature, to create educational environment, to protect students, or to prevent crimes. According to the records of the court below, it is confirmed that the entrance of each school of this case is confirmed at the entrance of the parents, and that the entrance can be permitted in advance, such as the purpose and place of the visit and the issuance of a visiting certificate after recording on the visiting record.

On the other hand, in the case of the election of the superintendent of the Office of Education, the candidates have a higher interest than the general voters and have a higher influence on them, and there is a great fear that the possible side effects of door-to-door visits can be increased as seen above.

In this case, at the time of visiting △△ Elementary School, the Defendant, according to the guidance of the above school teachers, allowed the teachers to gather as laboratories in each school year, and appealed for support by finding each school. This can be seen as a realistic site where the risk of such harm is likely to occur.

Therefore, since each of the offices of the schools of this case is a place where many people have not opened to the public, it constitutes “title” under Article 106 of the Public Official Election Act.

【Finality

Ultimately, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the act of visiting the school of this case is a door-to-door visit, and the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit.

㈐ 학교 이외의 관공서 방문 부분에 대한 판단

(1) The lower court determined, among the respective public offices of this case, whether the visit is prohibited based on the guidance and control of access by the public service center, on the grounds that the △△ District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the △△ Public Health Center established a public service center, and the △△ Public Health Center is in charge of civil affairs in the administrative support division. The above public service center and the administrative support division are free access by the general public, and whether the visit is prohibited based on the guidance and control of access by the public service center.

However, it does not mean that a civil petitioner's access to the above public office is permitted by the civil petitioner's access, and the guidance is merely conducted for the provision of services or convenience of the public office, not for the entry without the guidance.

Therefore, even if each government office of this case is subject to guidance and control at the time of entry, if many people are expected to pass to the office for civil petition affairs, it does not constitute a "title" prohibited by door-to-door visits.

According to the records, in the case of the Educational Support Division of △△ Office, it is expected that the general public have access to the affairs such as after-school schools, school violence prevention and institutionalization, student festivals and art cultural activities, personnel management, service, awards and decorations, middle school teachers, school administration and life records, and personnel management, service, awards and decorations, and disciplinary action management. The general affairs of △△ branch support department, civil and criminal trials division, and auction division are also engaged in the affairs necessary for the extension of the public service center. The health promotion division of △ branch public health promotion division is composed of a health administration team, a single bank health team, a visiting health team, and a visiting health and sanitation team, and the civil petitioners may have access to the department. The case department of △ branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office is also a place where many people will have access to the affairs such as the receipt, dividend, execution, seizure, change, etc. of the case, and the general affairs of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch will be open to the public.

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The head of a branch office or branch office of △△ branch office of △△ branch office of △△ branch office specified in the facts charged shall not be deemed to have visited the employees of each of the above affiliated offices for the purpose of only one day, and the defendant shall undergo a meeting of the head of the branch office or the head of the supporting office.” According to the records, even though the defendant visited the head of the branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △△ branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △△ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office of △ branch office, it is difficult to view that the defendant visited the head of the above affiliated office or branch office office office office office for election campaign.

Applicant The act of visiting each government office of this case cannot be seen as door-to-door visits prohibited under the Public Official Election Act. Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it does not constitute a crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion pointing this out is justified.

B. As to the transmission of text messages

(i)The judgment below

The lower court determined that the act of transmitting the instant text messages constituted an election campaign by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court.

(1) Even after having come to an election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education in 2010, the Defendant seems to have been able to continue to be elected by the Superintendent of the Office of Education.

② The Defendant sent the instant text messages from February 4, 2014, which was the registration date of preliminary candidates to the Superintendent of the Office of Education in 2014, on January 28, 2014, and on January 29, 2014, before one week.

③ The content of the instant text message is “to enhance the competitiveness of Chungcheong education by gathering prides.” This is the Defendant’s three-dimensional relief at an election of the superintendent of education in 2014.

④ Contents of letters sent by the Defendant by automatic broadcast communication in 2013 are “the next month, as with the next month, celebly as possible, from the next place to the defendant’s dlim.” This also corresponds to the ordinary class of personnel. However, the contents of the text of this case are clearly different from those of text messages sent by the Defendant to the next place in 2013, by expressing their comments to the elector and requesting assistance, except for the part “the Defendant’s three times of publication.”

⑤ A civil petitioner who received the text message of this case received it as an illegal election campaign and filed a civil petition.

d. Sheet Judgment Board

㈎ 관련법리

Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act defines “election campaign” as “an act to be elected or to be elected or not to be elected”, and “the act of transmitting a text message as a text message on a holiday, such as New Year’s Day, Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day, Day’s Year’s Year’s Day, Day’s Day, and Day’s Day, etc.”

Preliminary election campaign refers to any act necessary or advantageous for the purpose of obtaining or obtaining a vote for the purpose of winning an election of a specific candidate in a specific election, or any act necessary or unfavorable for the purpose of defeating the election of a specific candidate against an elector, which may objectively be recognized as having the intention to promote the success or defeat in the election, from among all acts necessary and unfavorable for the purpose of defeating the election of a specific candidate, and is excluded from here, and whether an ordinary, ordinary, or private act is an ordinary or social act shall be determined in light of ordinary social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the social status of the offender and the other party, his/her relationship, motive, method, contents, and manner of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3862, Jul. 14, 2011).

㈏ 판단

Examining the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination that the act of transmitting the instant text messages constitutes an election campaign in light of the content of the instant text messages, the time and motive of transmission, differences with the contents of the previous text messages, and whether the recipient of the instant text messages received them through an election campaign is acceptable.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On June 4, 2014, the Defendant: (a) registered as a preliminary candidate on February 4, 2014; (b) registered as a candidate on May 15, 2014; (c) held a Publication Commemorative Meeting on January 11, 2014; and (d) held on January 27, 2014, that the Defendant was scheduled to leave the election of the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education on January 27, 2014.

No one shall distribute, post, spread, show or run an advertisement, letter of personnel management, poster, photograph, document, picture, picture, printed matter, recording, video tape or others similar thereto, which contain the contents supporting, recommending or opposing a political party or candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate), or which indicate the name of a political party or candidate's name, in order to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day.

Nevertheless, on January 28, 2014, prior to the registration as a preliminary candidate for the Superintendent of the Office of Education at the 6th regional election, the Defendant sent text messages containing the purport of requesting the Defendant from the Superintendent of the Office of Education to the office of Non-Indicted 1 located in the Cheongju-si (location omitted), through Non-Indicted 2, who had the above Non-Indicted 1 access to the Internet KT fee text transmission site (website address omitted) via the computer, and then had 165,436 electors located in the 00-do, 165, and 166 electors in the 00-do, the Defendant sent text messages to the electorate of the 6th regional election. Defendant three hundred and sixty eight eight times from that time, as indicated in the attached Table 11:35 on January 29, 2014 (2).

As a result, the defendant sent mobile phone text messages to the electorate total of 378,681.

B. The lower judgment

The Public Official Election Act amended on February 29, 2012, reflected the purport of the Constitutional Court's decision of limited unconstitutionality on Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, allowing a prior election by transmitting text messages. However, in case of transmitting text messages by means of automatic broadcast communication, only the candidates or preliminary candidates may be allowed to the extent not exceeding five times and the provision was newly established to punish the violation (Article 59(2)2 and Article 256(2)1(b) of the same Act).

Considering the history of the revision and reason for the revision of the Public Official Election Act, it is interpreted that the act of election campaign by sending text messages is no longer regulated under Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, but rather regulated under Article 59(2) of the newly established Public Official Election Act.

Therefore, in this case, the act of transmitting text messages by means of automatic broadcast communications before the defendant registers them as preliminary candidates cannot be deemed to violate the legal provisions of this case.

(c) Party inquiry team;

(1) Article 93 of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter “instant legal provision”)

Article 93 of the Public Official Election Act (Prohibition of Unlawful Distribution, Posting, etc. of Documents and Pictures)

(1) No one shall distribute, post, spread, play, or run an advertisement, letter of personnel management, poster, photograph, document, picture, picture, printed matter, printed matter, recording, video tape, and others similar thereto which include contents supporting, recommending, or opposing a political party (including the preparatory committee for the formation of a new political party and the party platform or policy of a political party; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or which indicates the name of a political party or candidate's name, in violation of the provisions of this Act, in order to have an influence on the election from 180 days before the election day (in

d. The previous interpretation of the legal provisions of this case

The Supreme Court has interpreted that data in the form of document prepared and transmitted, received or stored in an electronic form by a device with data processing capabilities, such as a computer, and has been standardized as data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7488, Jan. 27, 2005), transmission of mobile phone text messages (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do445, Mar. 12, 2009), posting of user contents (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6555, Sept. 25, 2008) on Internet homepage are also regulated by the legal provisions of this case.

Article 12(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (hereinafter “instant limited unconstitutionality decision”).

In the instant legal provision that “other similar things” includes “an act of posting information, such as writing or video images, or transmitting e-mails, on an Internet homepage or its bulletin board or toilet room, etc. via an information and communications network,” it infringes on the freedom of political expression or the freedom of election campaign in violation of the excessive prohibition principle (see Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ma101, 2007Hun-Ma101, 201, 201, 2010Hun-Ba8, 2010Hun-Ba8, 2010Hun-Ma173, 191(combined)

· Reasons for and amendments to the Public Official Election Act

The actual provisions of the Amended Act No. 11374, February 9, 2012

In accordance with the purport of the Constitutional Court's decision of limited unconstitutionality on the legal provisions of this case, prior election campaigns by posting letters or videos on the Internet homepage or its bulletin board, video room, etc. or by transmitting electronic mail or text messages shall be allowed.

Article 59 (Period for Election Campaign) of the Public Official Election Act

1. Where a preliminary candidate, etc. conducts an election campaign pursuant to the provisions of Article 60-3 (1) and (2); 1. Where a preliminary candidate, etc. conducts an election campaign, the campaign may be conducted by sending text messages (excluding voice, images, or motion images other than text) at a time other than the election day; 2. Where a preliminary candidate, etc. conducts an election campaign by sending text messages at a time other than the election day; 3. Where a candidate or a preliminary candidate conducts an election campaign by sending text messages (excluding voice, images, or video images other than text messages) to a candidate or preliminary candidate, but the number of times such election campaigns shall be limited to five times (including the number of times a candidate sent such information as a preliminary candidate) before the election day:

(v) Determination

㈎ 이 사건 법률조항의 입법 목적

The purpose of this case’s legal provision is to prevent the harm of imbalances caused by unfair competition in election campaigns and differences in economic power among candidates based on the principle of ensuring equal opportunity for election campaigns under Article 116(1) of the Constitution, and to achieve the common interests of electors and all citizens, including electors, by promoting the freedom and fairness of election by preventing the occurrence of a consequence detrimental to the peace and fairness of election (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2007Hun-Ma718, Jul. 30, 2009).

㈏ 인터넷 매체의 특성

Since advertisements, personnel management books, posters, photographs, documents, paintings, printed materials, or audio and video tapes as shown in the instant legal provisions require considerable expenses and effort to prepare, produce, and distribute them, and one-time and passively takes place for the delivery and use of information using them, it is not easy for candidates (or persons intending to become candidates) or persons other than those directly related to them to express political opinions or carry out election campaigns using such media, and it is difficult for them to present cases where they are engaged in election campaigns, and without any restriction, it is highly likely that any harm caused by the difference in economic power between candidates might occur, and there is no possibility of self correction of information in the communication media (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ba17, April 24, 2014, Supreme Court Order 2012Hun-Ba391, Supreme Court Order 2012Hun-Ba391, Apr. 24,

On the other hand, Internet is the most adjacent medium to the free market of ideas based on openness, interaction, de-central control, accessibility, diversity, etc. In other words, Internet is a medium with low cost that can be easily accessed by anyone and most participating and Internet is the most participatory. In other words, Internet has the characteristics that not only the expression through the provision of information, but also the receipt and acquisition of information require more active and intentional action, so it is highly probable that the general right holder is likely to engage in political expression or election campaign on the Internet, damage the fairness of election due to the difference of economic power may occur, and the right to reply, debate, and correction of wrong information can be achieved in the medium itself, and communication and information diversity can be secured without the involvement of the State.

In addition, due to these characteristics, the Internet is a medium that is useful for the realization of national sovereignty and the strengthening of democracy, and at the same time, meets the purpose of the Public Official Election Act, such as “improvement of balance of opportunity, transparency and low cost” (see the instant limited constitutional decision).

On the other hand, documents and printed materials are, in principle, premised on face-to-face or contact even in the delivery method of information, and they are delivered in such a way that may cause excessive voting, such as distribution and posting to the general public, mail delivery, large-scale scattering, and cutting in, and may be used as means of force and city, and thus, the influence on the fairness and peace of election is also different from the Internet (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ba17, Apr. 24, 201).

㈐ 문자메시지의 특성

In the case of text messages, it has characteristics similar to the Internet, in particular, electronic mail rather than an off-line medium, such as documents or printed materials. In other words, considerable costs and efforts are not deemed to have been required for the production and distribution of text messages, and anyone can easily access them at low cost. Since the transmission and acceptance of information using such text messages may not open the relevant text messages nor receive information contrary to such intent by using the function of blocking the reception of text messages, information can be selected voluntarily and actively. General voters other than candidates may also express political opinions or campaign using text messages, and it is highly probable that a large amount of transmission can occur at low cost, and thus, there is a possibility that the harm of the fairness of election due to a difference in economic power may be considerably lower than the existing media, and if an addressee uses the function of the answer site, communication is guaranteed.

㈑ 문자메시지를 전송하는 방법이 이 사건 법률조항을 위반하는지 여부

Article 59 Subparag. 2 and 3 of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 59 Subparag. 2 and 3, which reflects the purport of the above decision, provides for certain restrictions only on election campaigns through text messages and the Internet, but it appears that the act of transmitting text messages does not constitute an election campaign by means of sending text messages, such as the method of using the Internet or e-mails, and the similarity between text messages and the Internet and e-mails, and the limited decision of unconstitutionality of this case is merely against the Internet or e-mails. However, in light of the fact that the act of conducting an election campaign by means of transmitting text messages is a supplementary provision that does not apply to acts directly prohibited and punishable by other Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall be interpreted that the act of transmitting text messages does not constitute an election campaign by means of unlawful means prohibited by the provisions of the Act of this case. Accordingly, if an election campaign is conducted by transmitting text messages, it shall not be punished for violation of the provisions of the Act of this case, and can only be punished for violation of the proviso of Article

⑹ 소결

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is justified, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The Defendant is a preliminary candidate to the election commission of ○○○buk-do located in Cheongju-si on February 4, 2014 with respect to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education of ○○buk-do nationwide elections, and a person who registered as a candidate for the same election commission on May 15, 2014.

No person shall make a house-to-house visit for an election campaign.

Nevertheless, on February 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) found the shoulder belt, which was inserted as “the Defendant for the preliminary candidate of the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education,” in the school room located in the second floor of the △△△△-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) visited 16 office offices of the government office where an unspecified number of civil petitions can not be freely visited, as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 9 through 24, in order to find out the shoulder belt; and (c) there were no other employees of the office.

Accordingly, the defendant made a door-to-house visit for election campaign.

Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Articles 255(1)17 and 106(1) (including door-to-door visits, and including door-to-door visits) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act (the violation of an election campaign period), Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 256(2)1(b) and the proviso to Article 59(2) of the former Public Official Election Act (Amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014); Article 256(2)2 of the former Public Official Election Act (the transmission of text messages by means of automatic broadcast communications)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Offences of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to Violation of each Election Campaign Period, and the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the transmission of text messages by automatic broadcast communication methods, and penalties for violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the violation of each offense committed, due to the heavier nature of each offense)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment as prescribed by the Local Education Autonomy Act due to House-to-House Visits with the largest Punishment)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

2. Scope of recommended sentencing guidelines: Fines of 700,000 won to 2750,000 won.

(a) Violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to a violation of an election campaign period (four times the same crimes);

[Determination of Punishment] Election Crimes, Violation of Election Campaign Period and Illegal Election Campaign, and Violation of Election Campaign Period (Type 1)

[Specially Convicted Persons] Reduction element: Where the degree of violation of the election campaign methods is minor;

Aggravations: Where a crime was committed against unspecified persons or many other parties;

[Scope of Recommendation] Fines of KRW 700,000 to KRW 1.5 million (Basic Area)

[General person who has been sentenced to punishment] Reduction element: Serious reflect

(b) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes;

A fine of KRW 700,00 to KRW 2750,00 [the lower limit of the scope of punishment for basic crimes shall be the lower limit of the scope of punishment, and the upper limit shall be KRW 1.5 million of a fine of KRW 1.5 million of the upper limit of the scope of punishment for basic crimes and KRW 50,000 of a fine of KRW 1/2 of the upper limit of the scope of punishment for concurrent crimes and KRW 50,000 of a fine of KRW

3. Determination of sentence: Fine of 700,000 won; and

In light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act that strictly regulates the methods, periods, etc. of election campaigns in order to ensure the fairness of election, and the purport of the superintendent of the Office of Education and the fact that it is required that all students, parents, and educational workers become the principal reporters of all the City/Do education, and that strict morality is required, the crime of this case by sending door-to-door visits and text messages in violation of the Public Official Election Act is not easy.

However, it does not constitute door-to-door visit prohibited by the Public Official Election Act, even in the case of prohibited door-to-door visits, rather than visiting the house of ordinary citizens, and the defendant's visit to a school where many school personnel are stationed is not considerably influenced by the defendant's visit. The possibility of the defendant's visit such as purchase and profit inducement is low. After receiving the notice from the election management committee that the act of visit in this case may be at issue, the act of visiting was suspended. The number of persons transmitted the text messages in this case is considerably large. However, if the defendant sent the text messages in this case, the contents related to the election are not mentioned directly, and it is difficult to view that the transmission of the text messages in this case had a favorable influence on the election, it is difficult to see that the delivery of the text messages in this case had a substantial influence on the election, and that there is no substantial difference between the defendant's election and non-indicted 5, non-indicted 6 and non-indicted 7 as a preliminary candidate in competition with the superintendent of education in this case's name.

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant is a preliminary candidate to the election commission of ○○○buk-do located in Cheongju-si on February 4, 2014 with respect to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education of ○○buk-do nationwide elections, and a person who registered as a candidate for the same election commission on May 15, 2014.

No person shall make a house-to-house visit for an election campaign.

Nevertheless, on February 5, 2014, the Defendant found the shoulder belt, which was read as “the preliminary candidate of the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education”, at the first floor of the △△△△ Office located in the Chungcheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, △△△△△△△, the Defendant visited △△-gun and the office of government offices located in the △△△-gun and △△△△△△△△△△, which read as “the preliminary candidate of the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education........ I have interest to be changed to the new education of Chungcheongbuk-gun......” The Defendant appealed from the above date to February 6, 2014, the Defendant visited 8 of the office of government offices located in the △△-gun and △△-si, where many unspecified civil petitions are unable to freely visit, as described in the [Attachment] list

Accordingly, the defendant made a door-to-house visit for election campaign.

B. Determination

위 2의 가.⑶㈏항에서 살펴본 바와 같이 이 부분 공소사실은 범죄로 되지 아니하는 때에 해당하므로, 형사소송법 제325조 전단에 의하여 무죄를 선고하여야 할 것이나, 이와 일죄 관계에 있는 판시 호별방문으로 인한 지방교육자치에관한법률위반죄를 유죄로 인정한 이상 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

2. The point of transmitting text messages by illegal means;

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

As described in paragraph (a) above 3-A.

B. Determination

As examined in the above 3-C., since this part of the facts charged is not a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the violation of each election campaign period, and the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to the transmission of text messages by means of automatic broadcast communication methods, it shall not

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)

1) In the case of an administrative office listed in [Attachment 1] 11, 24 No. 11 and 24, it is difficult to view it as a place open for the free access of the general public, since it is subject to permission from the entrance and exit of the school as seen earlier.

2) On November 20, 2014, the prosecutor filed a public prosecution against the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 (the Secretary General of the Chungcheong Education Power Station), etc. on or after the date of the trial of the public prosecutor’s motion for resumption of oral proceedings. Thus, the public prosecutor’s application for resumption of oral proceedings was not accepted for the following reasons. ① Article 270 of the Public Official Election Act regarding the period of trial of election offenders and their accomplices shall be promptly conducted in preference to other trials, and the sentence shall be made within 6 months from the date of the first public prosecution, and within 3 months from the date of the first public prosecutor’s pronouncement of the judgment at the second and the third public prosecutor’s request for new proceedings. In light of the above facts, the public prosecutor’s first public prosecutor’s request for new proceedings and the records pertaining to the period of trial of the public prosecutor’s first public prosecutor’s new proceedings after the date of the second public prosecutor’s request for the examination of the aforementioned case’s new proceedings are not subject to exceptions regarding the period of trial of the first public prosecutor’s final proceedings.