2. B

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting each of the 100,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. The defendants' status and case background

Defendant B is F director who is a public opinion poll institution, Defendant A is a seat professor at G Schools.

The Defendants, at the H Political Party’s Doctrine on February 8, 2017, proposed a public opinion poll to establish the election strategy of H party (hereinafter referred to as “the first public opinion poll”) to the Chairperson of the H Party I Emergency Countermeasures Committee (hereinafter referred to as “H Party”) on the following grounds: (a) Defendant A’s Doctrine on the flow of public opinion on the 19th presidential election; (b) response measures by H Party; and (c) remuneration-friendly strategy.

From March 14, 2017 to July 17, 2017, the Defendants conducted the first public opinion poll by examining whether to support candidates for the 19th presidential election that was scheduled to take effect on May 9, 2017, as well as how to investigate the appropriateness of various pending issues, such as the assertion of the presidential impeachment, and North Korea's threat of security by North Korea. On March 19, 2017, the Defendants reported the results of the public opinion poll to 10 persons, such as Hparty executives including the said I, and members of the National Assembly.

Since then, the Defendants were able to conduct a second public opinion poll with more detailed contents in the extension line of the first public opinion poll, and the Defendants planned to conduct the second public opinion poll for 800 electors in Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi, and Chungcheong area after preparing a draft public opinion poll in consultation with the Defendant B, and after determining the text of the public opinion poll in consultation with the Defendant B.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

Where a public opinion poll on an election is conducted, no one shall be allowed to ask questions to a particular political party or candidate using words or sentences biased to a particular political party or candidate, compel those polled to give answers, or ask questions in a way that leads them to give answers according to the intention of the inquiring person.

From March 28 to December 29, 2017, the Defendants conducted a telephone survey method against 623 general telephone visitors in Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi-do, and Chungcheong area through employees in charge of the Fpublic opinion poll, and conducted a secondary public opinion survey by removing 1,039 data with low response commitment and exceeding the sample of regional allocation by collecting 200 data for each Seoul, Incheon, Gyeonggi-do, and Chungcheong area with low response commitment and 800 data for each region.

The Defendants asked at the 19th presidential election of the said public opinion poll, after asking questions as to what political party candidates, what political party candidates support, and whether they support M who is a candidate for a Lparty, the Defendants also asked questions by using the words or sentences that are biased to a specific candidate as follows, and by inducing a response according to the investigator’s intent.

A. The Defendants asserted that the N political party’s winning in the 05-1, 2016 total line was due to the fact that he was able to enter the N political party immediately before the 20th line and led the N political party by combining it with the N political party. There is an argument that the Defendants would be due to the fact that M was not supported by M, which would have led to the failure of M to support the 0th unit after the 5-2 line. There was an argument that “Publicism”, “25-4, and 0”, “M would not be qualified as the President.”, “ Q5-5. M would have taken advantage of the 20th class line with the 0th line with the 0th parallel line, but it would be good that Q-5.5.7.5.7.”

The above question is a critical question about M in relation to the resignation from 0, and then the question is to question whether M is supported or not after awareness of the negative perception about M.

B. The Defendants opposed M at the time of dissolution of the Rparty of Q6-4 in Q6-4 from the P regime, and in December 2014. In some respects, the Defendants predicted that M candidate’s right will be restored to the R Party. The R Party will be restored to the R Party. The R Party will visit North Korea in preference to the U.S. and communicate with S regardless of the opposition of the U.S...., and then question “ Q9. M will support the North Korean attitude of M. Q9 to the President.”

The above questions are the contents of asking questions as if M support is M party restoration, and asking questions as to M’s critical perceptions about M’s inter-North Korea, and then re-examineing whether M support is supported.

C. The Defendants stated that Q11. Mar. 1, 2009 ‘The 11st century, the opposite to Q11. Mar. 21, 2009, ‘U', consistently, at the prosecution investigation, demanded USD 100,000 for only the house of their children, and, at the same time, at the same time, at Q11-1. T. Q1-1, the Defendants stated that ‘T.T.T.T. 1-T. Q.T. 15 billion won will be transferred to the company in which Q.T. Q. Q. 14.T. 16. Q.T. 16. Q.T. 14. T.T. 16. Q. 15. Q. 16. Q. 16. Q.T. 14. 16. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 16. 16. 15. 15. 2. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1.

The above questions shall be made on the part of the opposing party and on the part of the candidate for the competition, T previous President Bribery

The author introduces the negative perception of M in the form of questioning that the actual owner of "AA" is the owner of "A" and "AA" in the Sewol ferry, and introduces the negative perception of M, and then re-examines whether M support once.

D. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to ask questions by using the words or sentences that would be disadvantageous to the candidates for M and would not support the candidates for M in accordance with the investigator’s intent. The Defendants asked questions by inducing the response.

3. Defendant B’s crime

Where a person conducts a public opinion poll on an election, he/she shall indicate the name and telephone number of institutions or organizations conducting the public opinion poll before asking questions to those to be polled.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not disclose the phone number of F in the public opinion poll institution in conducting the public opinion poll at the time and place mentioned in paragraph (2).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's statement made to AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, and AG;

1. AH-related written answers;

1. A fact-finding certificate of AI;

1.Recordings (lines - informants)

1. A written accusation;

1. 여론조사(2차) 설문지, 조사대상 전화번호DB 일부, 기본 프로그램, 중앙선거여론조 사심의위원회 제출자료 목록, 법인등기부등본(KDN), 언론기사 출력물 5부, 2017년도 정치조사 제안서, 1차 여론조사 설문지, '2017년 대선 아직 끝나지 않았다 0324 파일 출력물, '대선 전략팀 구성방안' 파일 출력물, '3월 26일 회의 정리 전략1 파일 출력물, '메시지 구성과 판흔들기 전략' 파일 출력물, '후보메세지_정리 일반' 파일ŽE, BĚH Z 0717 7131 AG · A · AE · AJ · AC · AK · AL · AM · AN · AO. AP과의 각 통화 내역 및 문자메시지 내역, AQ 교수가 선관위에 보낸 이메일 출력물, AR 교수가 선관위에 보낸 이메일 출력물, 세금계산서, 외주업체에서 수행한 온라인조사 데이터 저장 CD, 전화조사원 명단, 여론조사 참여요청 이메일 출력물 사본, 여론조사 안내멘트 화면 출력물 사본

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 256(1)5, Article 108(5)1 and 2 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines

B. Defendant B: Article 256(1)5, Article 108(5)1 and 2 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 256(1)5 of the Public Official Election Act and the former part of Article 108(5) of the Public Official Election Act; and the selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Issues

1. Summary of the defendants and defense counsel's assertion

A. The second public opinion poll in the holding (hereinafter referred to as the "public opinion poll in this case") is a scientific and objective survey on the people's overall politics with Defendant B in the process of receiving the request for consultation from H parties and responding thereto. ① Even if the survey or its similar form is carried out, it is not so-called a quantitative analysis that has a representative in accordance with the overall population of the Republic of Korea, regional vision, age and gender proportion, etc., but rather, it is a "regular analysis" that has obtained ideas to the extent necessary for the formulation of a party's strategy or the formulation of a policy without requiring accurate data or numbers, and ② It does not constitute a "public opinion poll on election" under the Public Official Election Act, since it is performed for the purpose of publishing or reporting or for the internal purpose of reference in political and election campaign, or for the internal purpose of reference in political and election campaign.

B. The instant public opinion poll was conducted to introduce the issue already reported to the media regarding M, and only to conduct research and analysis to track or measure how the people's political consciousness response to M, and it did not lead or induce the Defendants to manipulate or induce public opinion. Therefore, the public opinion poll did not ask questions by using words or sentences to be biased to a specific candidate or by inducing a specific candidate to respond according to the investigator's intent.

(c) The telephone method survey has been used by a telephone that enables identification, and the panel, who is polled, has already been aware of where the investigating agency is an investigating agency, so it is not necessary for those to be polled to indicate the telephone number of the conducting public opinion poll.

2. Determination

A. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Public Official Election Act

1) Article 108(5) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "any person who conducts a public opinion poll on election shall clarify the telephone number of the institution conducting the public opinion poll, and shall not use words or sentences that are biased to a particular political party or candidate or induce the applicant to answer according to the intent of the investigator." Thus, it is not limited to cases where a public opinion poll on election is conducted for the purpose of publishing or reporting the subject matter of regulation. 1) Since regulating the methods of public opinion poll as mentioned above is aimed at securing credibility and fairness as much as the public opinion poll may affect the decision-making of the voters, it is necessary to regulate so far as it may affect the decision-making of the voters who are the other party to the public opinion poll even if it is not premised on the publication or report.

2) The term "election" in Article 237 (1) of the Public Official Election Act means "a motive for the election, such as voting or election campaign, or election, in a specific election." An act related to the election does not necessarily require a certain candidate to be an act for the purpose of success or defeat in the election, and is not limited to an act within the election campaign period, and it also includes an act before the election period or after the completion of the election counting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5019, Nov. 23, 1996); and the term "election" in Article 115 of the Public Official Election Act, which provides that "any person shall not make, or have another person make, an act of contribution to, the candidate or political party to which he belongs" in relation to the election, is more appropriate than that of the candidate's election, even if the election for the relevant election is not carried out, or where it is related directly to the election in the public opinion poll, etc. based on such legal principles as "public opinion about the election" of the candidate.

3) The prior or academic meaning of the public opinion polls refers to a social survey conducted for the purpose of disclosing what members of society have with respect to various social issues, policies, issues, etc. However, it is doubtful whether the concept used in natural science and the quantitative analysis 3) can be applied as it is to the definition of the public opinion poll. In addition, even though the public opinion polls does not have the definition of the public opinion poll, if it is conducted in connection with the election, it is necessary to regulate to secure objectivity and reliability unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 8-8 (8) of the Public Official Election Act.

B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts or circumstances can be acknowledged.

1) On February 8, 2017, the Defendants proposed a political survey for the establishment, etc. of a charter party strategy to H political parties, and conducted the first public opinion poll as of March 14 through 17, 2017 at the request of H parties, and reported the result to H parties. According to the “political survey proposal in the year 2017, which was stored in Defendant B’s computer,” the purpose of the said “political survey” was to establish a charter party strategy for the winning of the H party remuneration candidate and to seek measures to convert the status into the key issues and frame.

2) The Defendants deemed necessary to reflect the changed situation after the primary public opinion poll. 1

I would like to investigate the public opinion of the people who are specialized in the public opinion poll. I would like to examine the public opinion of the people who have the right to vote across the Republic of Korea. I would like to see the presidential election before May 9. I would like to investigate the people's mind in such urgent political situation. I would like to examine the people's mind in this urgent political situation. I will respond to the question for a period of time.

In the extension line of the next public opinion poll, the 19th presidential election (hereinafter referred to as the 19th presidential election) was conducted on March 28, 2017 to around 29, which took place one month prior to the extension line of the 19th presidential election (hereinafter referred to as the 19th presidential election), and the result was reported to the AS that was elected as a candidate for the H political party counter-party. Then, the 19th public opinion poll was conducted on the premise that the 19th presidential election was conducted on the 19th presidential election, and there is no provision that the 19th public opinion poll was conducted on the premise that the 20th public opinion poll was conducted on the 19th presidential election, and

3) The Defendants, the chief unit of the AE, the AE, and the AU School ProfessorJ, the AE, the AE, the main unit of the AT Party, have been convened on March 26, 2017, immediately before the instant public opinion poll was conducted, and discussed that the gale board should also be emphasizing the issues such as “the presidential bribe, M and Z’s abduction” as a trace strategy. This was reflected in the text of the public opinion poll of this case.

4) The instant public opinion poll questions were 00 in the letter of “M,” which was the part of “M, secedes from the Lparty. M is predicted to restore the Rparty if M is located. M is expected to communicate with S despite the U.S. opposition. The records of TBribery case should be disclosed to the public, and most of the instant public opinion poll questions are composed by asking whether M is supported by M on the basis of the details criticized by the competition candidate or opposition against M, who is a specific candidate.

5) AC, the chief director of the public opinion polls Research Institute, stated that the content of the instant public opinion poll report from the Election Commission to the prosecutor’s investigation, rather than holding the policy and pledge, may not be deemed to have been conducted for the purpose of research. As such, AC, the chief of the public opinion poll deliberation committee, who is the director of the public opinion poll, continues to ask specific persons for the suspicions, it cannot be deemed to have been conducted for the purpose of research. As for the instant public opinion poll, A Q, the members of the Central Public Opinion Opinion Research Committee, who are political and diplomatic professors, are too large in the number of the questionnaires to be “research.” In the case of a researcher, it is not well-known that the researcher would obtain a direct answer with this so long-term text. It is evaluated

6) Meanwhile, the instant public opinion poll conducted part of the public opinion poll conducted by K in the form of outsourcing, and only K has been in charge of sending e-mail and collecting response to the panel by using the questionnaire transferred by the F in the instant public opinion poll as it is (in case of sending e-mail, the public opinion survey agency was notified to F in the form of a public opinion poll, and the combined data was transferred to F in the form of telephone survey and processed with the contents of the telephone survey.

C. Whether the pertinent public opinion poll is a "public opinion poll on election"

In light of the above facts and the records and arguments of this case, it is reasonable to view that the public opinion poll conducted by the defendants constitutes "public opinion poll on election" under the Public Official Election Act, and that the public opinion poll conducted by the defendants is "public opinion poll on election" under Article 8-8 (8) of the Public Official Election Act, as alleged by the defendants, it is not "public opinion poll conducted for pure academic and research purposes in the fields of politics, election, etc. not deemed public opinion poll on election."

(d) Whether to induce a person to respond according to the convenience of the text of the questionnaire and his/her intent;

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts and the records and arguments of this case, i.e., ① organizing questions based on the contents criticized by the competition candidate or opposition against M, and there is no mentioning of the position of M on such criticism; ② making three times or repeated questions about the method of asking whether M support after mentioning the critical contents of M, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants committed an act of asking questions by using the words or sentences leading to a specific candidate or inducing a specific candidate to respond according to the investigator’s intent while conducting the instant public opinion poll.

(e) Whether the phone number has not been published;

According to the above facts, online survey by K is not conducted in the capacity of an independent public opinion survey institution, but conducted by the above company as a proxy with part of the public opinion survey conducted by the F in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., so online survey institution should also be seen as the "B". Therefore, regardless of whether the panel in question has already been aware of K's telephone number, Defendant B needs to disclose the phone number of the "F" which is a public opinion poll institution" (limited to public opinion poll by telephone, it is also the same in that the phone number of the public opinion poll institution is displayed in the general telephone used by the person in question and the nominal owner is only in the situation where the person in question has already joined the service of transmitting the phone number display.

Sentencing 4)

1. Scope of punishment by law: Not more than six million won by fine; and

2. Determination of sentence;

In the process of conducting a public opinion poll for the purpose of establishing the alternative strategy for the advice of the political party, the crime of this case is one of the following: (a) the Defendants, who are statistical scholars and the operators of the public opinion poll institutions, either form a questionnaire in violation of the methods of public opinion poll prescribed by the Public Official Election Act, or asked questions to the specific candidate, who is the investigator, and did not disclose the phone number of the public opinion poll institution to those to be polled according to the intent of the Defendants, who are the investigator. This is not only a crime but also a crime in that it damages the objectivity and reliability of public opinion poll, but also damages the fairness of election.

However, the results of the instant public opinion poll do not have been published or reported to the outside of the H party (this does not apply to the criteria for the public opinion polls, which is the public opinion polls of the Central Committee for Deliberation on Public Opinion pollss on Election), and it is difficult to see that the Defendants’ act of violation was particularly influenced by the presidential decision, in light of the number of respondents or the method of sampling samples from the person subject to investigation. Furthermore, the Defendants merely intended to engage in a public opinion poll as part of political activities or research activities, and therefore, did not consider the regulations and restrictions under the Public Official Election Act, and there seems to be little economic benefits acquired in return for performing the instant public opinion poll.

In addition to these various circumstances, the defendants' age, character, conduct and environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, such as circumstances before and after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

Judges Sung Jae-in

Judges' Index

2) The Chemical Analysis Act’s general term is to identify what ingredients samples consist of.

3) The general term of the analysis method that clarifys the quantitative relationship comprising the substance.

4) As to the crimes indicated in the judgment, no sentencing guidelines are set.