[1] The meaning of "organization's election campaign" prohibited under the Public Official Election Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that, in case where the defendant was indicted for committing an election campaign by a group that is a representative of a group that supports a specific political person as a car page established on the Internet portal site for the purpose of soliciting a specific candidate for the re-election of National Assembly members, the defendant cannot be deemed to have engaged in an election campaign under the organization's name or representative's name by inviting members or ordering members to participate in an election campaign

[1] The term "organization's election campaign" prohibited by Articles 255 (1) 11 and 87 (1) 3 of the Public Official Election Act means that an organization, its representative, executive or employee, or its member conducts an election campaign in a manner that makes it easy for general electors to easily recognize that an election campaign is conducted in the name or representative name of the organization, even if they do not directly express or express the organization's name or representative name.

[2] In a case where the Defendant, the representative of a group of members of an Internet portal site, who is a group of members of a certain political party, engaged in an election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act for the purpose of following a specific candidate in connection with the re-election of a National Assembly member, was prosecuted for committing an election campaign by a group of members, the case affirming the judgment below that even though the Defendant and some members of a group of members, including the Defendant, told that they should visit the market, subway station, and store in the relevant constituency to encourage them to participate in the election, and wear a shoulder belt to encourage them to wear a specific candidate to participate in the election, the Central Headquarters of the Internet portal site should hear answers from the Election Commission to the effect that it goes against the law, and even if some members of the group were dissatised in the region, it is difficult to view that the Defendant cannot be seen that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was the name of the group’s representative or doctoral degree in the name of the representative or doctoral degree, and that there was no other person’s name or doctoral degree in the name.

[1] Articles 87(1)3 and 255(1)11 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Articles 87(1)3 and 255(1)11 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Seo Sung-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 2011No1820 decided September 27, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 87(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act provides that a private group (including its representative, executives, employees, or members; hereinafter “organization”) among individuals, such as native folks society, relatives’ society, alumni association, alpine society, etc., and fraternity group, shall not engage in an election campaign in the name of such organization or in the name of its representative. Article 87(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act provides that anyone who conducts or causes another person to conduct an election campaign in contravention of the former part of Article 255(1)11 of the Public Official Election Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 6 million won. As such, the term “organization’s election campaign” prohibited by Articles 25(1)1 and 87(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act means that an organization, its representative, executives, or members may easily recognize an election campaign in the name of the organization or in the name of its representative without direct specification or direct specification of the name of its representative.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) took account of the fact that the name of the online portal site was opened in the following Kaum, and the name of the non-indicted 2’s Mao-Ba’s member who took part in the activities to support the former Mao-Ba’s representative, the Defendant, including the Defendant, was the representative of the Mao-Ba’s (hereinafter “Mao-Mao-Ma”), and that the number of the members of the Mao-Ba’s store, including the Defendant, was visited on July 17, 2010, and entered the 7.28 Mao-Mao-Ma’s store and the Mao-Ba’s store, and that some of the Mao-Ma-Ma’s members were unable to carry out the Mao-Ma’s campaign. However, even if the Mamo-Ma-Ma’s name and the Mamo-Ma-Ma’s election campaign, the Defendant did not seem to have interfere with the above Mamo-Ma-Ma-Mag’s election campaign.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the election campaign of an organization prohibited under Article 87 (1) 3 of the Public Official Election

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

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)