[1] The case holding that the Saemaul Movement Federation, an incorporated association, constitutes a national movement organization established under the Special Act, which received contributions or subsidies from the State or local governments, pursuant to Article 60 (1) 8 of the Public Official Election Act

[2] The case holding that since the Si Saemaul Movement is a Si organization of the Saemaul Movement Federation, the defendant, a member of the local council, who is the representative of the Si Saemaul Movement Council, constitutes an "person prohibited from election campaign" under Article 60 (1) 8 of the Public Official Election Act

[1] The case holding that it is reasonable to interpret that the Saemaul Movement Association is a national movement organization established under the Special Act and contributed or subsidized by the State or local governments (referring to the Society for a Better Tomorrow, the Saemaul Movement Council, the Korea Freedom Federation) under Article 60 (1) 8 of the Public Official Election Act, and that even though it has the form of an incorporated association established under the Civil Act even though it has the form of an incorporated association established under the Civil Act, the above interpretation does not interfere with such interpretation or the above interpretation does not violate the principle of no punishment without law as an analogical interpretation.

[2] The case holding that since a Si Saemaul Movement is a Si organization of the Saemaul Movement Federation, the defendant, a member of the local council, the representative of the Si Saemaul Movement Association, constitutes a national movement organization established under the Special Act, which received contributions or subsidies from the State or local governments, and constitutes an "representative of the Si organization of the Saemaul Movement Council" under Article 60 (1) 8 of the Public Official Election Act, who is not eligible for an election campaign.

[1] Article 60 (1) 8 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Article 60 (1) 8 of the Public Official Election Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2008No1986 decided Dec. 30, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below should interpret the Saemaul Movement Federation as a national movement organization established under the Special Act on the Election of Public Officials (referring to the Society for a Better Tomorrow, Saemaul Movement Council, and Korea Freedom Federation) and an organization contributed or subsidized by the State or local governments (referring to the Better Tomorrow Movement Council, Saemaul Movement Council, and Korea Freedom Federation), and held that even though the Saemaul Movement Federation and the Saemaul Movement Association have the form of an incorporated association established under the Civil Act, such interpretation does not interfere with the same interpretation or the above interpretation does not violate the principle of no punishment without the law. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the legal provisions of this case or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the legal provisions of this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Based on its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, the representative of the Saemaeul Association, is a national movement organization established by the Special Act, which is an organization contributed or subsidized by the State or a local government, who cannot engage in an election campaign as the representative of the Saemaeul Movement Council under the legal provision of this case. In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the “market organization” under the legal provision of this case, the principle of no punishment without law, etc.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The court below held that it is reasonable to impose restrictions on election campaign pursuant to the provision of this case where the defendant has the status as a member of the local council which can carry out election campaign and the status as a representative of the Si organization which can not carry out election campaign, on the grounds that the contents enumerated as a person who cannot carry out election campaign under the proviso of Article 60 (1) of the Public Official Election Act are independent of each other and only one of them cannot carry out election campaign. In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the proviso of Article 60 (1) 4 of the Public Official Election Act and the freedom of election, the representative system under the Constitution and the principle of local autonomy.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of ① the contents and history of the legal provisions of this case, history and contents of the Saemaul Movement Organization Support Act, and the changing process of the Saemaul Movement Federation, the Saemaul Movement Association is the central organization of the Saemaul Movement Federation. Thus, the defendant, who is the representative of the Saemaul Movement Association, can clearly interpret the provision of this case as "the representative of the Saemaul Movement Council of the State or local governments, which is a national movement organization established under the Special Act, with contributions or subsidies from the State or local governments," and therefore, it does not violate the principle of clarity required by the principle of no punishment without law, and ② The grounds for restriction on election campaign under the subparagraphs of Article 60 (1) of the Public Official Election Act are independently determined. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant and the Saemaul Movement were not in violation of the principle of no punishment without law, freedom of election campaign, government power, representative system, and the principle of no punishment without law, and that the defendant and the person in charge of no election campaign, who are in charge of the election campaign of this case, are not in violation of the principle of no punishment without law.

5. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

An election campaign under Article 58 (1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to all acts necessary or favorable for the election or winning of a specific candidate, and an active and planned act that can be objectively recognized with the objective of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate. Specifically, in determining whether a certain act constitutes an election campaign, it should be determined simply by comprehensively observing not only the name of the act, but also the form of the act, i.e., the time, place, method, etc. of the act, and whether the act is an act accompanying the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3468, Oct. 11, 2007).

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, based on the evidence duly admitted, by recognizing that, on March 27, 2008, the Defendant carried out a campaign by carrying out a candidate who is the Nonindicted Party on the recommendation of the Hancheon-si Party, and participating in an election campaign at a meeting of the election countermeasure committee held at the election campaign office of the Nonindicted Party, located in Macheon-si, and carried out an election campaign by holding three times for the purpose of hosting the “frequency” in the election campaign. On April 6, 2008, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of election campaigns under the Public Official Election Act, the party members' rally, and the principle of non-f

6. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)