Attorney Kim & Lee -

Attorney Lee Do-young

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

No person shall publish false facts with respect to a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) his/her spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, or siblings, in a manner unfavorable to a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) by means of a speech, broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or any other means with the intention of preventing him/her from being elected.

On June 13, 2002, the Defendant went out of the third local election of Dong-si to be a non-affiliated member of Ulsan Metropolitan City. On May 31, 2006, the Defendant went out of the fourth local election of Dong-si to be a member of Ulsan Metropolitan City under the jurisdiction of Korea, but went out of the election of Jungsan Metropolitan City under the jurisdiction of Ulsan Metropolitan City. On June 2, 2010, the Defendant went out from the 5th local election of Dong-si to be a member of Ulsan Metropolitan City under the jurisdiction of Korea, and the first chairman was elected. On June 4, 2014, the Defendant went out the election of Ulsan Metropolitan City Council on June 4, 2014, but went out the election of Ulsan Metropolitan City Council on June 13, 2018, the Defendant went out the election under the jurisdiction of the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City.

On the other hand, on April 27, 201, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, the head of the Gu, and the 6th local election on June 4, 2014, elected as the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the head of the 7th local election. On June 13, 2018, from the 7th nationwide Dong branch election, the election of the head of the Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu,

피고인은 2018 . 6 . 5 . 19 : 30경 울산 남구 00로 212에 있는 KBS 방송사 울산스튜디오 에서 개최된 울산광역시 중구청장선거 후보자토론회에서 , 박○○의 " 공항주변에 뭐 고 도를 완화하겠다 이런 말씀도 있던데 그건 국제민간항공기구에 따라 국제기준입니다 . 모든 나라가 공통으로 받는데 그거를 어떻게 해제하겠다는 겁니까 ? " 라는 질문에 대하 여 , " 국제민간항공에서 규제를 하고 있지만은 우리나라에 7개의 공항이 완화지역에 포 함되어 있습니다 . 따라서 우리 중구도 여기에 포함되어서 비행선로가 변경이 되어졌습 니다 . 그럼에도 아직까지 우리 중구에 구민들은 여기 불이익을 당하고 있습니다 . 이것 을 제도개선을 위해서 우리 지금 문재인 대통령이 청와대에서 제도개선위원회를 만들 어 놨지 않습니까 ? 충분히 해결할 수 있는 집권여당의 구청장입니다 . 네 , 여기에 대해 서는 우리 문재인 대통령과 더불어민주당의 또 지방분권과 균형발전정책을 통해서 충 분히 실현시킬 수 있다 . 염려하지 않아도 될 문제입니다 . 울산시장과 충분히 이 문제도 협의하고 있는 상황이니까 이 문제에 대해서는 우리 틀림없이 집권여당의 여당 후보가 해낼 수 있는 충분한 능력을 가지고 있습니다 . " 라고 답변하였다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 답변 ' 이 라 한다 ) .

However, in fact, the area surrounding the Ulsan Airport was not included in the area subject to the mitigation of altitude restriction, and thus, it was not changed to the airship, and in particular, the mitigation of altitude is impossible unless there is any change in the international standards prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (International Civlavi). At the time, the above international standards have not been changed until the time, so it was not possible to take any measure related to the altitude restriction to prevent the residents of Jung-gu and the immediately preceding Ulsan Metropolitan City from being disadvantaged Gu from being disadvantaged in exercising their property rights.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had been included in the area adjacent to the Ulsan Airport, and accordingly, even though it has been changed to the airship, there is still a disadvantage for the residents of Jung-gu residents in the middle-gu. After speaking at a conclusive level, it has been emphasized that it is a candidate who can solve it at the end of the night, thereby failing to take any measures with respect to the restriction on the altitude, and it has been published as if the residents of Jung-gu were suffering from damage until now.

As a result, the Defendant published false facts about the purpose of preventing the election from being elected to the candidate of the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City mid-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the answer in this case cannot be deemed to be a public announcement of the fact about the other party candidate, ② the content of the answer in this case does not constitute a false fact at the time of overall examination, and ③ the defendant did not have any awareness of publishing false facts.

3. Determination

(a) Basic facts

According to the evidence of this case, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) Pursuant to Article 82-2(3) of the Public Official Election Act, the Jung-gu Election Commission of Ulsan Metropolitan City held a TV forum (hereinafter referred to as the “TV Debate”) at the Ulsan Metropolitan City’s U.S. broadcasting company’s Ulsan Metropolitan City’s U.S. broadcasting company’s U.S. broadcasting company’s U.S. broadcasting company’s U.S. broadcasting company by inviting ○○ and Defendant, a candidate for the head of the Gu in Ulsan Metropolitan City, on June 5, 2018.

2) The instant TV debate is carried out in the order of ① the candidate’s leading debate (for a period of three minutes and three minutes; hereinafter the same shall apply) according to the U.S. professor’s society, ② the common inquiry into the subject of the innovative City and Gu Do’s development and win-win policies (1 minute 30 seconds), ③ the presentation of each “agreement on Economic, Urban, Traffic, Environment and Welfare, School Land and Culture, Culture, and Safety,” (2 minutes), questions (30 seconds), answers (2 minutes), and (4) the candidate’s leading debate was carried out for seven minutes by candidate. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17458, Mar. 23, 2006>

3) After the Defendant’s public announcement on the economic, urban, traffic, and environment, the pertinent statement was in the order of Park ○-○ asked questions and followed the Defendant’s answer. On the Defendant’s question at Park ○-○, the Defendant responded to the instant question as indicated in the facts charged. As to this, Park ○-○ did not have any further question or rebuttal.

4) In the instant TV debate, there was no speech on the relaxation of the restriction on altitude in addition to the instant reply.

5) The instant TV debate was broadcasted from around 30 on June 5, 2018 to 20:25 on the same day after the video recording.

6) Park○○ candidate had not raised an objection to the instant reply to the Election Commission, etc. even after the instant TV discussions were recorded and broadcasted.

7) After the Defendant was elected, on October 6, 2018, the Defendant was accused of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts, etc. by the head of the U.S. 6/13 local election promotion team of the U.S. Free Republic of Korea who was the head of the U.S. 13 local election promotion team, and the Defendant was accused of the violation of the Public Official Election Act. However, gambling○ did not file a charge against the Defendant

B. Whether the instant reply was publicly announced as to the candidate of the other party

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Among the "facts about a candidate" under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, indirect facts such as not only facts about a candidate himself/herself but also facts about a political party to which a candidate belongs or his/her personnel affairs are related to a candidate, in cases where such facts are directly related to a candidate and such publication is in the nature of hindering the candidate's election, such facts constitute facts about the candidate. Unlike those of this, if facts publicly announced differently from the facts are not directly related to the candidate and are not likely to lose the credibility of the candidate's election or affect it, they shall not be included in facts about the candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8368, Mar. 15, 2007).

B) Furthermore, in order to establish the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, the purpose of 'the purpose of preventing the election as an excessive subjective element' is to establish this crime. 'the purpose of 'the election' is to make the exact judgment of the elector by publishing false facts about the candidate and thereby to prevent the candidate from obtaining a majority of his voting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2817, Jun. 29, 2007). Whether the purpose was to determine whether the purpose was the defendant's social status, the motive and method and form of publication, the contents and form of the act, the nature and scope of the other party's act, and the social situation at the time of the act, etc. should be determined reasonably in light of social norms by taking into account all the circumstances such as social status of the defendant, the candidate or the candidate, and the candidate's personal relation with the candidate, the method and method of publication, the nature and scope of the other party's act.

2) Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the answer of this case was an answer to the purport that ○○ would make efforts to reduce high level restrictions along with Cheongdae, System Improvement Committee, democratic party, and Ulsan City Mayor, etc. When the defendant is elected after the election, it is reasonable to view that the answer of this case was not directly related to ○○○○○○○○, and that it did not affect ○○○○○○○○○○○’s credit on the election, and that the defendant’s answer of this case was made for the purpose of preventing ○○○○ from being elected. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○’s reply was made for the purpose of preventing ○○○ from being elected, as stated in the facts charged, for the purpose of preventing ○○○ from being elected, and that it was difficult to interpret that ○○○○’s reasonable measures were not made public for the purpose of making it public.

① The instant reply does not include the fact that Park○○, who was the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City Jung-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “head of Jung-gu”) at the time, was able to take measures related to the mitigation of ancient restriction, but did not take any measures, and did not properly perform his duties. The reference to Park○○ was not made once, and the content of the Defendant’s promise to realize a pledge in the future.

② Park○-○ had followed the question of this other matter, which was neither a material question nor a reflect on it after the instant reply, and subsequently did not at all refer to this subject until a TV forum in this case is completed. However, it appears that the instant reply did not have been aware of criticism about himself.

③ In the instant TV forum, the Defendant mentioned a question about the implementation of the past’s pledge of Park○○○, the question of Park○○’s prior conviction and exemption from military service, the question of typhoon-related countermeasures, the reduction of the number of middle-gu peoples, the problems of mid-gu festivals, the problems of the construction of the middle-gu Student Park, the problems of budget waste caused by the design change of the middle-gu culture, etc. If the Defendant tried to attack that he did not make an attack against Park○○○ even though he could have made efforts to mitigate the restriction. However, if the Defendant tried to attack that he did not make efforts to mitigate the restriction against Park○○, he would have made inquiries about why and why he did not make efforts to mitigate the restriction to Park○○, along with the above issues, or did not talk to that purport.

④ On May 21, 2018, the Defendant made a briefing session on May 21, 2018. At that time, the Defendant stated to the effect that “At present, the Defendant would immediately be able to relax the restriction,” and that if the Defendant is the head of the Gu, the Defendant would be able to promote the mitigation of the restriction, and even during his former head of the Gu, he could promote the mitigation of the restriction, but did not mention that he did not ○○.

⑤ When the Defendant mentioned the instant TV debate or the instant promise announcement through other media than the reporters’ conference, the Defendant did not seem to have made a statement to the effect that Park ○○○ was unable to implement the mitigation of the restriction despite the fact that he could have been able to do so by the former head of the Gu.

1. The complainant of the instant case indicated that he was not the other party of the Defendant, but Kim △, and Park ○○ would not participate in the instant accusation (Provided, That Park ○ submitted a reference document containing a statement to the effect that he would be punished by the Defendant on March 26, 2019, after the closing date of the pleadings in the instant case). In light of such background of the accusation, Park ○○ did not think that the reply of the person who was the other party of the instant case constitutes publication of false information about the principal with the intention to prevent him from being elected.

7) Furthermore, the instant reply appears to be a defense or defense against the Defendant’s high-ranking election campaign, which was made at the level of defense as it pointed out the problems regarding the Defendant’s campaign after the Defendant’s announcement of the pledge, and it appears to be a defense or defense against it. It is reasonable to view it as the content of the Defendant’s credit on the Defendant’s ship rather than Park○-○

C. Whether the content of the instant reply constitutes “a false fact”

1) Relevant legal principles

“False facts” under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act means matters that are inconsistent with the truth and are sufficient enough to have the elector correct judgment on candidates. However, in a case where important matters are consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the published facts, even if there is a little difference from the truth or a partial exaggeration, it does not constitute a false fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do26, Mar. 12, 2009; 201Do3824, Jun. 24, 2011). Whether a certain expression is false or not should be determined based on a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the expression, objective contents, ordinary meaning of words used, connection method of phrases, etc. on the premise of ordinary methods of expression. < Amended by Act No. 10681, Apr. 25, 2015>

2) Specific determination

As seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the overall purport of the instant reply constitutes false facts in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records and pleadings of this case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proven without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant expressed false facts about ○○○○○○○○○○’s election, even if ○○○ does not take any measures with the aim of preventing the instant reply from being elected.

① 이 사건 답변은 ' 국제민간항공에서 규제를 하고 있지만은 우리나라에 7개의 공 항이 완화지역에 포함되어 있습니다 . 따라서 우리 중구도 여기에 포함되어서 비행선로 가 변경이 되어졌습니다 . ' 라는 부분 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 답변 중 A부분 ' 이라 한다 ) 과 ' 그럼에 도 아직까지 우리 중구에 구민들은 여기 불이익을 당하고 있습니다 . 이것을 제도개선 을 위해서 우리 지금 문재인 대통령이 청와대에서 제도개선위원회를 만들어 놨지 않습 니까 ? 충분히 해결할 수 있는 집권여당의 구청장입니다 . 네 , 여기에 대해서는 우리 문 재인 대통령과 더불어민주당의 또 지방분권과 균형발전정책을 통해서 충분히 실현시킬 수 있다 . 염려하지 않아도 될 문제입니다 . 울산시장과 충분히 이 문제도 협의하고 있는 상황이니까 이 문제에 대해서는 우리 틀림없이 집권여당의 여당 후보가 해낼 수 있는 충분한 능력을 가지고 있습니다 . ' 라는 부분 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 답변 중 B부분 ' 이라 한다 ) 으 로 나눌 수 있다 .

② Of the facts charged in the instant case, there is no fact that the surrounding area of the Ulsan Airport was included in the ancient restriction area. Accordingly, the phrase “not changed to an airship” is acknowledged as a fact by the evidence 1). As such, the part A in the instant reply is different from the fact.

③ Of the instant reply, the part B is at a disadvantage for the Gu residents due to the high altitude restriction, and if the Defendant is elected to the head of the Gu after the vehicle, it cannot be deemed that there was a statement of opinion to the effect that it would make efforts together with the Cheongdae, the System Improvement Committee, and the Democratic Party and the Ulsan City Mayor, etc., and any fact is publicly announced.

④ Examining the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor did not prosecute that the part A of the instant reply constitutes a publication of false facts about gambling, but instead, it was impossible for Jung-gu residents to have changed the international standards set forth in the International Civil Aviation Organization unless there was any change in the said international standards, and thus, Park ○, who was a candidate and the head of the immediately preceding Gu, was unable to take any measures related to the restriction of altitude in order to prevent any disadvantages to the residents of Jung-gu from exercising their property rights (hereinafter referred to as the “presumed part”), under the preceding paragraph, “the Defendant was included in the area adjacent to Ulsan Airport was also subject to the restriction of altitude, and thus, it was concluded that the Defendant was still at a disadvantage for the residents of Jung-gu to be treated as candidates by the end of the year, and that the Gu residents of Jung-gu as candidates who were at the end of the year were still at any time subject to the restriction of ○ (hereinafter referred to as the “presumed part”).

⑤ In examining the facts charged as above, the part of the premise that ○○ was presumed to have not been able to take any measure related to the restriction on height, and the part of the defendant's answer that ○○ was aware that ○○ was a situation where ○○○ was able to take sufficient measures by speaking a false part A, and therefore, the part of the defendant's answer that ○○ was able to take sufficient measures by speaking a false part of ○○, can be found to have been that ○○ was able to make a public announcement of the fact that ○○ was suffering from damage by failing to take any measure, or that ○○ was able to make a public announcement of the fact that ○○ suffered from damage indirectly or bypass, by failing to take any measure. However, considering the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved the above premise.

① The limitation of obstacles around an airport was established pursuant to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, and our country has joined the said Convention and complied with the criteria established by the said Convention and the agreement annexed thereto. Korea also joined the International Civil Aviation Organization established pursuant to the said Convention, and is acting as a standing director after 2001. The provisions on the limitation of obstacles around an airport were governed by the former Aviation Act, but the proviso of Article 82(1) of the former Aviation Act (amended by Act No. 13381, Jun. 22, 2015) was governed by Article 82(1) of the former Aviation Act (amended by Act No. 13381, Jun. 22, 2015).

However, despite the overall development of aviation areas after the first application in 1955, there was an opinion that the above obstacle limitation surface was necessary to be maintained until now. In particular, the members of Gangseo-gu, Yangcheon-gu, and Seocheon-si, Seoul National Assembly, local autonomous body heads, and local councils, etc., located in the vicinity of the Kimpo Airport, have made many efforts to alleviate the altitude limitation. The Gangseo-gu, Yangcheon-gu, and Seocheon-si, Seoul, prepared a work agreement to mitigate the altitude limitation around August 24, 2010, and the Gangseo-gu, Seoul, on the basis of the 20th anniversary of the first application in the International Civil Aviation Organization in 1955, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport issued a report on the reduction of the altitude limit, and also made a proposal on the improvement of the aviation area around the 10th anniversary of July 3, 2013.

ⓒ 서울 강서구 을 국회의원 김▲▲ , 부천시 국회의원 원○○ 등의 발의에 의하 여 2015 . 6 . 22 . 제13381호로 구 항공법이 개정되었는데 , 그 개정 이유 중 하나가 공항 주변 고도제한으로 인한 공항 인근 주민들의 재산권 침해를 최소화하기 위하여 , 항공 학적 검토 결과 항공기의 비행안전에 문제가 없는 경우 고도제한의 적용을 제외할 수 있도록 하는 항공학적 검토 제도의 제반규정을 명시하는 것이었다 . 이에 따라 구 항공 법 제82조 제1항 제2호가 신설되었는바 , 그 내용은 ' 국토교통부령으로 정하는 항공학 적 검토 기준 및 방법 등에 따른 항공학적 검토 결과에 대하여 제82조의2에 따른 항공 학적 검토위원회의 의결로 국토교통부장관이 항공기의 비행안전을 특히 해치지 아니한 다고 결정하는 경우 ' 에 장애물의 고도제한에 대한 예외를 인정할 수 있도록 한 것이다 . 그리고 같은 법 제82조의2 제2항에서는 ' 항공학적 검토위원회에서 항공학적 검토에 관 한 사항을 심의 · 의결하는 때에 국제민간항공조약 및 같은 조약의 부속서에서 채택된 표준과 방식에 부합하도록 하여야 한다 ' 고 규정하였다 . 이후로는 구 항공법이 폐지되고 2016 . 3 . 29 . 법률 제14113호로 공항시설법이 제정되어 제34조 등에서 장애물 제한표 면에 관한 규율을 하고 있다 .

② 또한 2015 . 7 . 16 . 경에는 김▲▲ 의원과 정00 국회의장의 공동주최로 국회에 서 ' 공항주변 고도제한 제도개선 국제세미나 ' 가 개최되었는데 , 국제민간항공기구의 알 리우 의장 , 유○○ 국토교통부 장관을 비롯한 국내외 전문가 등이 참석하여 고도제한 제도개선에 관하여 논의를 하였다 .

① As seen earlier, local governments made efforts to improve the ancient restriction system, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport submitted official proposals to the International Civil Aviation Organization around 2013 to amend international standards for the ancient restriction system. On April 2014, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport also brought an action to “the necessity to amend the international standards for obstacle limitation surface and to prepare detailed standards for aeronautical studies” to the International Civil Aviation Organization. In addition, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport made T/F inside the intersection of the national land and examined the preparation of detailed domestic regulations in preparation for changes in international standards, and also made T/F related to the mitigation of ancient restriction, and it was known that the International Civil Aviation Organization also discussed the opening of obstacle limitation surface and the procedures for aeronautical studies.

19 In light of the above efforts and a series of processes by the heads of other local governments, it is difficult to readily conclude that the international standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization are impossible to change or that the mitigation of high level restrictions is the subject of no measure or effort as the head of the Jung-gu Office.

6. According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s reply, the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, the Yangcheon-gu Office, or the Seocheon-si filed a civil petition or a proposal for institutional improvement to alleviate the altitude of restriction, but there is no question about it.

D. Whether there was a perception that “the Defendant published false information”

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Since a crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act is a crime of publishing false facts, an actor shall be aware that the matter is false, and the existence or absence of such subjective perception is difficult to know or prove it outside the country due to its nature, it shall be determined by taking into account various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, process of publication, timing of publication, and anticipated ripple effect on the part of the Defendant based on the content and identity of the facts disclosed, the existence and content of the explanatory material, the source of the fact revealed by the Defendant, and the circumstances surrounding the personal seal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do2627, Jul. 22, 2005; 201Do3824, Jun. 24, 2011).

B) Meanwhile, in a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree to have the aforementioned convictions, even if there is room for suspicion of guilt, such as inconsistency with the Defendant’s assertion or defense, or non-competence, it should be determined in the interests of the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1628, May 13, 201).

2) Specific determination

As seen earlier, although the answer of this case, as described in the facts charged of this case, had been made “a false statement as if the Gu residents suffered damage to Jung-gu residents,” for the purpose of preventing the election of ○○○○, as described in the facts charged of this case, (or any measure related to the restriction on altitude could not be taken, even if ○○, as so far as ○○ was unable to take any measure related to the restriction on altitude, it cannot be said that the Defendant had been aware of its falsity and made a false statement because the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was difficult to deem that the Defendant had published it continuously without making any effort to confirm the truth of the fact of this case, and therefore it cannot be concluded that the Defendant had been made a public announcement without any reasonable doubt. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant had proved that there was an intention to make a false statement or a false statement publication.

① On October 12, 2015, Japan published the article of the title "" at least seven nearby private airports, such as Kimpo, and its contents are likely to be alleviated from 2017 to 26th (119m). It is expected that construction will be alleviated around the 6th anniversary of the Incheon National Airport. According to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, 12 days, the New Democratic Republic of Korea National ○○○○ and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport enacted the 10th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 2nd amendment.

② 서울 강서구 을 국회의원 김▲▲는 2015 . 4 . 30 . 경 네이버 카페에 ' 항공법 개정 안 ' 이 국회 국토교통위원회 전체회의에서 통과되었다며 , 고도제한 완화의 길이 열렸다 . 는 취지의 글을 게시하기도 하였다 . 또한 2016 . 4 . 13 . 국회의원 선거운동 기간 동안 , 당시 서울 강서구 김▲▲ 국회의원 후보자는 고도제한 완화를 공약으로 제시하기도 하 였고 , 2018 . 6 . 13 . 제7회 전국동시지방선거 당시 서울 강서구청장 후보자였던 E 역시 고도제한 완화를 공약으로 제시한 바 있다 .

③ The Defendant submitted a pledge to the National Election Commission. Of the five pledges, the Defendant entered “the protection of property rights of residents” in the order of pledge 2, i.e., by relaxing the altitude restriction, and the target: Ulsan has been regulated according to the air space set at the airport. However, the government has been designated as the subject of relaxing restriction, and there has been no regulatory measures since applying the high altitude restriction to approximately 350,000 square meters in the business area at the time of the development of the Sung-gu Housing Site in order to ensure the protection of residents’ property rights through relaxing restriction. Therefore, if the Defendant was aware that Ulsan Island was not designated as the subject of relaxing restriction area, it would have failed to enter it in the official pledge submitted to the National Election Commission if he knows that it was not designated as the subject of relaxing restriction.

④ In addition, on May 21, 2018, the Defendant made a conference on May 21, 2018, and according to the survey of the pledge, “Slsan Airport has played a pivotal role in the economic development of the U.S. in the past, where the land traffic was not active due to the mitigation of the local development policy and the height restriction around the airport,” and “Slsan Airport has been under the title “Slsan Airport has played a pivotal role in the economic development of the U.S. Airport,” but it has been under the restriction of property behavior due to the strict high-level restriction made in accordance with the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICO) in 1955. Accordingly, the government started to submit the ICO official proposal in 2013 and did not seem to have been designated by the 15th anniversary of military installations in the nationwide airport, and it did not seem that the first airport was subject to the relaxation of the foregoing restriction.

⑤ The story on the relaxation of the restriction was made in the TV debate of this case. The question was defective and the answer was made in the process of asking questions to the Defendant, and there was no indication on the mitigation of the restriction. The part A in the answer of this case, which was prepared in advance, was false, cannot be deemed as having been aware of it and made a statement in advance.

(6) Moreover, there is no reasonable motive to view that the Defendant, while taking the risk of criminal punishment due to the violation of the Public Official Election Act, made a public announcement of the false fact in the TV debate on the candidate of the head of the Gu (the actual viewing rate was limited to 1.9%) with respect to which the actual viewing number does not exceed the number of people.

7) After the report of the above C-day newsletter, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport submitted piracy materials, and the report materials that the change of the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization was required to be prior to the change, were circulated several times, and the victim tried to inquire about the agenda related to the restriction on altitude while in office as a member of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council in Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the defendant was aware that the head of Jung-gu Office could not take any measures related to the mitigation of the restriction on altitude because the problem of extension was experienced due to the restriction on altitude, etc., but it is difficult to view that the head of Jung-gu Office could not take any measures related to the mitigation of the restriction on altitude as the head of Jung-gu Office, as seen earlier. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone related to the above indirect facts is insufficient to prove that the defendant was aware that the answer of this case was false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

8) The accuser sent the Defendant’s address without attending the first meeting of members of the Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City B-04 district redevelopment district, which was held around June 3, 2018. The agenda item of the above general meeting was a design modification due to high restriction. While the Defendant knew that the content of the agenda item was false in the instant TV debate, the Defendant argued that he responded to the instant reply even though he was aware that the content was false. However, according to the witness F stated in this court, the Defendant did not first expressed his intention to attend the above general meeting, and there was no talk about what the agenda item is, and the Defendant’s wife did not only divide the personnel affairs outside the general meeting, and it is difficult to accept the above assertion.

9) In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant believed that the Ulsan Airport was designated as the easing Restriction Area by the government, or that it is possible to mitigate the restriction on altitude due to the amendment of the law, etc. without clearly knowing the legal meaning of the easing Restriction Area, and that the Defendant promised to implement the mitigation of restriction on altitude by stating the same in his election campaign promises.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung

Judge Lee Il-il

의원 김■■ 국토교통부 질의에 대한 국토교통부 공항안전환경과 항공사무관 G의 회신 ) 등