beta
(영문) 광주고등법원 2015.06.04 2015노59 (1)

공직선거법위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In the written request for retrial as to whether the facts constitute false facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the part that “There is a written complaint within the region where F candidate was punished by a special larceny,” does not mean that F was punished by a fine, but that F has a criminal record of special larceny. In fact, since F was subject to juvenile protective disposition due to special larceny, this part cannot be seen as false as a whole, since F was subject to juvenile protective disposition due to special larceny.

B) It is difficult to deem that the Defendant was only aimed at affecting the request for a retrial on the result of the intra-party competition and preventing the election from being elected on the ship. Therefore, the Defendant’s sentence (each fine of KRW 3 million) by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable, rather than Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since the Defendants, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, sent a document stating false facts and facts to the press for the private interest to be elected in the election, the illegality cannot be avoided, the lower court did not seem to have any ground for excluding illegality in the factual part. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality under the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) In order to establish the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, it is necessary for the prosecutor to actively prove that the public prosecutor is false, and the fact that there is no proof that the public information is true is not established, but the crime of publishing false facts cannot be established.