공직선거법위반
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (related to the part of the charge) (A) the Defendant published by delivering a written accusation (hereinafter “instant accusation”) to another person on June 6, 2018 is not a written accusation, which is not the content of Defendant 1’s statement that “A Q who had worked in the district for a police officer for at least 20 years, filed a regular accusation against the current head of the Gun E with the investigative agency.”
The issue of whether the delivery of the instant accusation constitutes a person who has received the accusation is determined depending on what person Q who has received the accusation or which has received a formal accusation, and the delivery of the accused does not strengthen the trust of the people in the content of the accusation. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have published the content of the accusation.
If the defendant exercised any influence on the credibility of the content of the instant accusation at the time of delivery of the instant accusation, it may be deemed that the content is published, but there is no proof as to that point.
Ultimately, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have published the content of the instant accusation.
B. Even if the Defendant publicly announced the content of the instant accusation, the core content of the instant accusation does not mean that “E provided H with field trips expenses at private expense or personal expenses,” but rather that “E provided H with field trips expenses unfairly as the head of Gun regardless of the absence of the Gun’s budget, regardless of the absence of the Gun’s budget.”
Therefore, it should be determined on the basis of whether the latter's major contents are consistent with objective facts.
However, the part that H R stated to the effect that “the head of Gun has become an individual helpless of the B-Gun budget” is consistent with the fact, and E took personnel affairs for its members without raising any objection to R’s above speech. There are various circumstances that make it clear that H’s support for field attendance expenses is unreasonable.