Whether the act of posting user production content (UCC) on the Internet homepage can be included in the type of act, such as the distribution and posting of documents and drawings, in a fraudulent manner prohibited by Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act (affirmative)

Articles 93(1) and 255(2)5 of the Public Official Election Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4045 Delivered on November 25, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7847 Delivered on February 22, 2007

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Hann Law Firm, Attorneys Yoon Young-young et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2008No951 decided June 27, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that means of evasion of the law are “advertisements, letters, posters, pictures, pictures, pictures, pictures, paintings, printed materials, recording tapes, or other similar things,” and basically provides for media or means having the nature or function of delivering intentions with respect to the subject matter. It is not tangible material but digital information, and even if it falls under digital information, it has the unique function of delivering ideas or intentions using letters and symbols to others. Users’ contents (UCC, User Created) are in charge of the function and function of delivering digital documents in the so-called information and communication era where computers are distributed generally and everyday, and it does not affect elections if posted on the Internet homepage, so it is unnecessary to regulate them as well as that it seems consistent with the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act that guarantees the fairness of elections, and thus, it is also deemed that the act of posting candidates on the Internet homepage (including persons who intend to become candidates) or acts of opposing the contents of a candidate’s 201.25.16.47

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding that the production of this case, which the defendant produced by using the computer, was posted on the official homepage of the candidate scheduled for the presidential election of the door-to-door party, constitutes a violation of the prohibition of distributing or posting documents, drawings, and pictures by unlawful means under Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of the legal principle as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)