[2] In a case where the Defendant, a candidate for election of a National Assembly member, conspired with the Defendant’s family members, filed a false report on the resident registration by making a move-in report to the Defendant’s family members’ domicile within the constituency for the purpose of casting a vote in collusion with the Defendant’s family members, the case affirming the judgment below convicting the Defendant by applying Article 247(1) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant made a false report on his resident registration.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the person who filed a false report on the resident registration for the purpose of casting a vote in a specific election district under Article 247(1) of the Public Official Election Act can only be the principal agent of the person who filed a false report on the resident registration for the purpose of casting a vote, and that the person who filed a false report on the resident registration for the purpose of causing another person to cast a vote cannot be the principal agent unless he/she conspired with another person with the purpose of casting a vote.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 247(1)

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to publication of false facts in the instant facts charged.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court found the Defendant guilty by applying Article 247(1) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act to the part of the ancillary facts as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the false report on the resident registration of the instant case on the part that the Defendant filed a false report on the Defendant’s resident registration for the purpose of casting the vote in a specific election district “publically recruited with the Defendant’s wife, her children, or her husband (hereinafter “the Defendant’s family”).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the eligibility of principals or the establishment of joint principal offenses

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s family members were actually residing in the possession of new shares or the Defendant did not conspired with the Defendant’s family members to commit this part of the facts charged under the foregoing paragraph.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)