공직선거법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The key point of the grounds for appeal D’s “share” function lies in sharing another’s notices with its own account and within the extent it is intended to inform and distribute them to another person, unlike the storage function that stores another’s notices in its D simply.
In light of the contents of each of the notices listed in the annexed list of crimes (hereinafter “each of the instant notices”) posted by Defendant using D’s function as “shared” and the timing and method of posting each of the respective notices, etc., it is clear that the Defendant’s posting of each of the instant notices on his page constitutes an election campaign related to the 20th election of National Assembly members.
Nevertheless, the court below acquitted all the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The lower court, following the relevant legal principles, found that according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s storage and posting of each of the instant notices to K by using D’s “sharing” function from February 21, 2016 to March 25, 2016, but, in light of the following circumstances known from the aforementioned evidence, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act clearly expressed the intent of promoting the election or defeat of a specific person or a specific political party appearing in each of the instant notices, and thus, acquitted the entire facts charged.
1 D’s “share” function is the function of allowing users to store and post the same notices as those of others to K, and at LD of other users who set up a relationship with the user himself/herself when using the above function.