[2] The validity of the above voting in a case where the residence voter’s mark and seal were put directly according to his intention, but the seal of the director of the mental hospital receiving medical treatment is affixed to the sealing part of the outer envelope for return use instead of the residence voter’s private person (negative)

[2] Where the residence voter’s mark and seal were put directly according to the intention of the voter himself, but the seal of the director of the mental hospital receiving medical treatment instead of the voter’s private person is affixed to the sealed part of the outer envelope for return use, the provisions of Articles 158(4) and 179(2)3 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice are as follows: (a) in the case of the residence voter, whether the seal and the seal were actually affixed to the residence voter; and (b) in the case of the residence voter, the fact that three private seals were omitted in the upper, middle, and lower part of the outer envelope for return use; and (c) therefore, even if the seal and seal of the residence voter were put directly by the voter according to the intention of the voter, as long as the private seal of the voter is omitted in the sealed part of the outer envelope for return use, it shall be invalid.

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case. The defendant argues that the defendant's decision that the plaintiff decided the plaintiff as the elected person is unlawful since there were many errors and errors in calculating the effective list by candidate. The defendant's decision that the plaintiff decided the effective list as the elected person is unlawful.

However, according to the result of verification of party members' voting papers, it was not found in the case where the valid votes supported by the plaintiff were erroneously classified, gathered, or treated as invalid votes unfairly as the valid votes of other candidates. Rather, there was a case where the votes to be treated as invalid are mistakenly classified and collected as the valid votes of the plaintiff. As a result, the number of votes obtained by each candidate was finally aggregated by the intervenor as the largest number of votes, and the number of votes obtained by the plaintiff as the 16,794, and 16,777, respectively, in the primary braille of the plaintiff. Thus, it is justifiable that the defendant decided the intervenor as the elected person.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the number of votes in attached Forms 3-1 and 2-2 of attached papers 3-1 and 3-2 of the ballot papers for which a temporary determination was postponed at the time of the verification of the ballot papers is obvious, but the plaintiff's votes are invalid. However, since all the votes in the above two ballot papers are put on the separate line of the two candidates' columns, and it is not easily known that they are put on any column, they should be treated as invalid in accordance with Article 179 (1) 4 of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (hereinafter "Act").

Furthermore, although 18 of the votes of the abode voter's voting place is 18 of the votes of the abode voter's voting place, the seal of the voting voter in question is affixed to the residence voter's private seal instead of the residence voter's private seal on the sealing part of the outer envelope for return use, since the voting is legally made by the voters themselves while the secrecy of voting is guaranteed, it is argued that the opening of the vote and the sealing itself are unlawful, and it is invalid and invalid without confirming it.

However, according to Article 158(4) of the Act, the residence voter shall put the ballot paper into the outer envelope after sealing it, put the inner envelope into the outer envelope for return, seal it, write his residence and name in the outer envelope, affix his private seal at three above, middle, and lower parts of the sealed part of the outer envelope for return use, and then send his private seal to the private person by registered mail. According to Article 179(2)3 of the Act, where the private seal of the residence voter is omitted in whole in the sealed part of the outer envelope for return use, the voting shall become invalid if the residence voter’s private seal is omitted. This purport is that the residence voter’s voting shall become invalid merely because the fact that the private seal was entirely omitted in the upper, middle, and lower three of the outer envelope for return use, as argued by the Plaintiff, and even if the residence voter and the seal sealed by the private person were directly carried out by his own voters, as long as the outer envelope for return use was not entirely sealed by his voting.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the decision made by the defendant as the elected person is illegal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff as the losing person. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)