1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 10(4) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act

Article 10(4) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act provides that “No person may engage in activities for requesting signatures by means of printed materials, facilities, or any other means, except where the representative, etc. of the requester for recall presents a list of petitioners for recall or explain the purpose or reason for recall voting verbally.” The phrase “making a request for signature” referred to in the above provision is interpreted as presenting a list of petitioners for recall for the request for signature, and the phrase “making a request” is premised on the active action of the person who requested the signature and the existence of the other party to receive the same. Thus, the act of unilaterally distributing and delivering the list of petitioners for recall to many and unspecified persons who are neither individual face-to-face between the person who requested the signature and the person who requested the signature nor the person who requested the signature, or sending or sending by mail, may not be deemed as falling under “making” as one of the methods of activities for requesting the signature as permitted under the above provision.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's act of making a request for signature at the entrance, delivery, or mail delivery of the list of the applicants for summons of this case in the manner other than that provided for in Article 10 (4) of the Recall Act, which is the act of distributing, delivering, and delivering to unspecified persons the list of the applicants for summons of this case where the reasons for requesting recall are stated in the entrance of Yongsan-gu, Samcheon-dong, Samcheon-dong, Samcheon-gu, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Jeoncheon-do, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation

2. As to the assertion of error in law

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding. Here, whether there is a justifiable reason should be determined depending on whether an act of misunderstanding is not aware of the illegality of one's own act as a result of failure to perform its duty, although it was possible to recognize illegality of one's own act even though the act was likely to have done so if the act of misunderstanding was done with his intellectual ability and had made a serious effort to avoid it (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3717, Mar. 24, 2006, etc.).

The lower court determined that, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s statement of the petition for summons in this case was distributed or issued to unspecified persons; (b) the purpose of the civil petition reply from the Ministry of Public Administration and Security regarding the method of presenting the petition list prior to distributing or delivering the list of petition for summons to unspecified persons; (c) the purpose of the written response received from the commission of the Jeon-si Election Commission, and the purport of reply through the Internet homepage of the Jeollabuk-do Election Commission and the National Election Commission; and (d) there was no justifiable reason to believe that

Examining the circumstances acknowledged by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on legal errors as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)