(영문) 대법원 2011.6.30.선고 2011도4691 판결

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, "False fact" under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act means a matter that is not consistent with the truth, and that is sufficient enough to have the elector make accurate judgment on the candidate. Meanwhile, in a case where the important part is consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the published facts, even if there is a little exaggeration or exaggeration of the truth in the detailed contents, it cannot be viewed as a false fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do26, Mar. 12, 2009, etc.).

Based on the evidence duly admitted, the court below held that the defendant's act of publishing "the defendant's act of participating in adviser to manipulate non-indicted 1, the counter-party candidate to the non-indicted 2 as a counter-espionage" constituted the act of publishing false facts about the candidate under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act. In light of the above legal principles and the above evidence, the court below's finding of facts and determination at the above court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "the false facts about the candidate" under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted, the lower court: (a) comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged, the Defendant participated in Nonindicted 1’s adviser on Nonindicted 2.

The court held that it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s election campaign office employees knew of the fact that the public letter containing the fact is transmitted to the desired production office, and that the same news material is transmitted to 4,780 persons in mass mail, and that the same statement of name was sent to 4,780 persons in mass mail, or that the Defendant’s election campaign office employees knew of the fact that the statement of name was posted on the Defendant’s website and the block, or

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

3. Conclusion

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