[2] Whether the freedom of political expression, such as the main sentence of Article 59 of the former Public Official Election Act prohibiting advance election campaigns and Article 254 (2) of the Public Official Election Act is violated (negative)

1. The term “election campaign” under the Public Official Election Act means an act that can be objectively recognized by the intention of promoting an election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election. To deem that there was an intent for such purpose, there is an objective circumstance that the elector is an act of promoting an election in a specific election, solely on the sole ground that the relationship with the election was likely to be inferred or that it was motiveed for matters regarding the election. Specifically, determination as to what act constitutes an election campaign ought to be made by comprehensively observing and determining the timing, place, method, and habits of the act as well as the name of the act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do11812, Aug. 26, 2016). The main sentence of Article 59 of the former Public Official Election Act prohibiting advance election campaign (Amended by Act No. 1456, Feb. 8, 2017; Act No. 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Do6165, Apr. 16, 2017

2. The lower court found Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 guilty of the above Defendants on the ground that they conspired to conduct a prior election campaign on October 3, 2015 while holding a rally for the collective election as of October 3, 2015. In light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is acceptable in light of the foregoing legal doctrine. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on criminal intent, conspiracy, common offense, non-conscept

In addition, the lower court found Defendant 5 guilty of the above Defendants on the ground that Defendant 5 met meals to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 21, 2015 and provided a prior election campaign in collusion with Defendant 1 and Defendant 5 at the same place. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intentional and co-principal, evidence law, and prior election under

3. The Defendants’ appeals are without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)