2019Do12767 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm Small and Medium Baum (Attorney Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) Decision 2019No114 Decided August 28, 2019

November 28, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act by deeming that there was no proof of a crime regarding the part of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to promotion of the achievements of those who wish to be a candidate in relation to the statement that the instant facts charged constitute a violation of restrictions on contribution acts, violation of the Public Official Election Act due to prior election campaigns, and violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the promotion of the achievements of those who want to be a candidate. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the elements for establishment of the free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, the elements for establishment of an occupational act under Article 112(2)4 (a) and (b) of the Public Official Election Act, intent to violate the Public Official Election Act due to a violation of restrictions on contribution acts, the concept of the

The Prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but did not state the grounds of objection in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief concerning the guilty portion.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the part of the charges of violating the Public Official Election Act due to publicity of the person wishing to become a candidate in relation to the statement that “public official” as provided by Article 86(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act includes the public official himself/herself who intends to participate in the relevant election, and the head of a local government also applies the said provision as it is.” In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation and unconstitutionality thereof, the concept of “public official” as provided by Article 86(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, the concept of “an act of promoting the candidate’s achievements,” and the concept of “an act of promoting the candidate’s achievements” as provided by Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

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 Park Jung-hwa

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-soo