2. B

Law Firm D (Defendant B)

Attorney E, F, G, H, I

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Defendant A is a person who operates a public opinion poll company called "K in Daegu Dong-guJ", and Defendant B is a head of the public opinion poll office of M who released him as a candidate for the election of the head of L/C on June 4, 2014.

No one shall, when conducting a public opinion poll on an election, ask questions to a specific political party or candidate using words or sentences to make them biased, and conduct an election campaign using letters, telegrams, facsimile and other means of telecommunication to the elector in a way that is not prescribed in the Public Official Election Act during the election period.

Nevertheless, in order to raise awareness of the above M and to inform the electors of the fact as a single candidate for the above M, the Defendants organized a question on May 31, 2014 and recruited to conduct a public opinion poll.

Accordingly, Defendant A conducted a public opinion poll on June 1, 2014 through 12:48 to 15:27 by phone calls to 403 electors using the ARS RD method, which was specially adjusted from the house of Defendant A located in the Cheongdo Cheongdo N, and Defendant A conducted a public opinion poll (hereinafter “instant public opinion poll”) on which the election of the head of L/C at the local election on June 4, 201 to which he belongs, was the two candidates. Whether the candidates who support the two candidates are or not? ① The election day of YN, No. 4 M No. 4 M No. 4 M No. 1 P(3) by asking questions to the above M, thereby promoting that the above single candidate was a single candidate.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conduct a public opinion poll on the election of the head of L/C and asked questions to the general public after his M/her election. At the same time, the Defendants conducted an election campaign using telecommunication method to the electors in a way that is not prescribed in the Public Official Election Act during the election period

2. Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

The defendants' words used in the public opinion poll are not biased to M candidates, and the defendants are only engaged in the public opinion poll in accordance with the Public Official Election Act, not election campaign.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed in the process of the court's hearing whether there is an act of asking questions to a specific candidate or not, i.e., ① the prior meaning of direction refers to one direction. The words used in the public opinion poll refer to the fact that other candidates than the current candidates of the political party having regime have achieved the simplification of power, not the expression in subjective judgment. ② The facts that the candidates of the 0 political party who are the 1st mark are the 1st mark in accordance with Article 150 of the Public Official Election Act are sufficiently recognizable to the general public, it is difficult to confirm the fact that the 0th candidate who is the 0 political party candidate's sign "4th mark belonging to the 0 political party candidate's sign, which is the formula for the P candidate, and it is difficult to find that the defendants are more reliable than the 0th candidate's sign, which is the 0th candidate's sign and the 0th candidate's sign that is the 0th candidate's sign, which is the one for the public opinion poll in order to increase the credibility and influence of the candidate's opinion poll.

B. Whether the case constitutes an election campaign

The term "election campaign" under Article 58 (1) of the Public Official Election Act means any active and planned act necessary for or favorable to the success or defeat in an election for public office under Article 2 of the Public Official Election Act. Specifically, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined whether the act is an act accompanying the purpose of promoting a certain candidate's election or defeat in the election (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8518, Mar. 29, 2007) by comprehensively observing not only the name of the act, but also the form of the act, place, method, etc. of the act, and whether the act is an act accompanying the candidate's election campaign (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do856, Jun. 9, 1998). Further, it is difficult to view that the public opinion poll was an incidental effect of the candidate's election campaign that the candidate or candidate's candidate did not have the effect of using the public opinion poll as stated in the public opinion poll in the following circumstances.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the Defendant is announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judge To call

Judges Il-il