공직선거법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the contribution act related to the holding of the Category B C sports games (1) 2, Article 4(2) of this Ordinance, Article 12(4) of the Ordinance on the Establishment of B-Gun Ban, Article 2 and Article 4 of the Ordinance on the Fostering and Support of the Organization of Saemaul Movement Organizations in the B-Gun Ordinance on the Promotion of the Public Official Election Act constitutes an ordinance of a local government that specifically determines the subject, method, scope, etc. under Article 112(2)4(b) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 3(1) of the Support of the Saemaul Movement Organization Act constitutes a statute under Article 1
Therefore, it is difficult to view that the act of B-Gun’s subsidization of the first and second B-Class C sports games (hereinafter “C-sports games”) based on its own project plan and its budget constituted “act performed in the course of performing duties” under Article 112(2)4 of the Public Official Election Act and constitutes a contribution act.
(2) At the active request of the G Federation and H, Category B provided subsidies for holding the C Games after review by the relevant statutes and the competent election commission.
Therefore, this can not be said to be the subject of contribution, since it is merely a part of the beneficial benefit administration that B, a separate legal entity, implemented for the Gun residents.
(3) Even when the Defendant received a report on the support plan for the C athletic games, the Defendant provided a guidance to the public official in charge to review whether it conflicts with the Public Official Election Act, and approved the support plan only after receiving the report of the response of the election commission.
Furthermore, the support for C athletic games was conducted at the time when the defendant was appointed as B head of the Gun, and the defendant did not participate in the deliberation, payment and settlement of subsidies according to the provisions of the B-Gun.
Therefore, the defendant is the defendant.