[1] The meaning of "a serious fact" under the proviso of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, which is related to the public interest"

[2] The case holding that the defendant's statement on the past records of his family of a candidate for the President of the Republic of Korea constitutes a candidate's secret act, but it constitutes a true fact and thus constitutes a case of public interest

[1] Even if a candidate's act falls under the main sentence of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act, if the alleged facts conform to the truth and are related to the public interest, the illegality is excluded pursuant to the proviso of the same Article. Here, the phrase "the fact alleged in this context conforms to the truth" is sufficient when the material facts are consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the contents, and even if there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression, and the term "the time of public interest" refers to the case where the public interest is not always superior to the private interest, if there exists both parties, and it is recognized

[2] The case holding that the defendant's statement on the past records of the candidate's family for the President of the Republic of Korea constitutes a candidate's secret act, but it constitutes a true fact and thus constitutes a case of public interest.

[1] Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Violations / [2] Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do977 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2432), Supreme Court Decision 97Do956 delivered on June 10, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2085), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4260 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1350), Supreme Court Decision 200Do4469 delivered on April 9, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1168), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606 delivered on November 13, 2003 (Gong203Ha, 2400), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do203645 delivered on June 25, 2004 (Gong2003Ha, 204).

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Il-il

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003No604 delivered on June 18, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below judged that the defendant, who is the chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Election Measures in the Korean War, was not elected for the 16th presidential election, from December 10, 2002 to 17:00, at Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-dong, where 15:0 of 15:0 of 202, to 17:00 of 17:00, who made a speech against about 200 persons, including the party members present at the place, ".. labor will not become the President if ...... were the President. It was the head of the Nowon-gu, who was the head of the Advisory Committee on Election Measures in the Korean War, killed only 11 persons and died at the 16th presidential election at the 16th presidential election, and determined that the defendant's act against the defendant's present election and his spouse was unlawful, and that the defendant's act was unlawful before and after the election was unlawful, since it did not meet the objective purpose, motive and reason of the public election law.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the recognition and judgment of the court below that the defendant's statement constitutes an act of defamation as provided in the main sentence of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts and legal scenarios as to the act of slandering (in light of the place and object of the defendant's statement, the recording of the defendant's statement or the statement that the defendant's statement was made at the time, or the protocol in which the statement was made at the time, the admissibility of evidence has been recognized by Articles 312 through

In addition, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of a crime of candidate's corruption in the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of ordinary political party activities as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal on this part is without merit. The ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that does not fall under the grounds for excluding illegality under the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election

Even if a candidate's act falls under the main sentence of Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act, the illegality is excluded pursuant to the proviso of the same Article when the alleged facts conform to the truth and are related to the public interest. Here, the phrase "the alleged facts conform to the truth" is sufficient when the material part is consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the contents, and even if there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed contents, it is unreasonable to say that the public interest is not always a superior motive to the private interest, even if there is both parties and there is if there is a reasonable reason to view it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do977, Jun. 28, 1996; 2003Do7423, Jun. 25, 2004).

According to the records, the non-indicted 1, the head of the candidate for the current president of labor force, was officially identified by the Minister of Justice at the 229th Provisional Assembly, which was held on April 10, 2002, and reported the same contents in major domestic daily newspapers at home, and further on a monthly basis, posted an article stating that the 11 person was at the time to live in the National Assembly through an interview with the person claiming to be the victim of the above school accident, etc. If so, even if the defendant's speech was partially exaggerated, the fact that the defendant was convicted of violating the National Security Act and died while returning to the National Assembly after being convicted of the crime of violating the National Security Act and committing murder, etc.

Thus, although the defendant's act cannot be punished by the dismissal of illegality under the above law, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for dismissal of illegality.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)