Requirements for the establishment of the "crime of door-to-door visit" under Article 106 (1) of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act.

The crime of door-to-door visits as prescribed by Article 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is established by continuously visiting two or more houses, and it does not necessarily have to enter the door-to-door, etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment is not unlawful solely on the ground that the visiting number of households is only three households, or that the visiting person works in the main gate outside of the main gate without opening the door.

Articles 106(1) and 255(1)17 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

Supreme Court Decision 75Do1659 delivered on July 22, 1975 (Gong1975, 8635) Supreme Court Decision 79Do2115 delivered on November 27, 1979 (Gong1980, 12376) Supreme Court Decision 99Do2315 delivered on November 12, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2555)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 99No412 delivered on September 2, 1999

All appeals are dismissed.

1. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As to the prior declaration movement

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts constituting an offense listed in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, which found the defendant guilty of the facts of the crime as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant committed an advance election campaign in around 12:00 of May 15,

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

B. As to door-to-door visits

The crime of door-to-door visits as prescribed by Article 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is established by consecutively visiting two or more houses, and it does not necessarily have to enter the door, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Do2115, Nov. 27, 1979; 99Do2315, Nov. 12, 1999); therefore, the crime of door-to-door visits as prescribed by Article 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is established by consecutively visiting two or more houses, and there is no justifiable reason as prescribed by Article 16 of the Criminal Act, even if the defendant misleads the defendant that the above act was not illegal.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts stated in Paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant visited the house of Lee Jong-sung, Ma-sung, and Lee Jong-sung, who is a person with a right to reside in the New Heungionion in Gwangju on June 2, 1998, in order to support "I will well request the defendant's candidate." The court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles and there is no error of law as to the establishment of the crime of door-to-door visit.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

C. As to the entry to the polling station

The decision of the court below is justified in finding a defendant guilty of having access to the polling station, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possibility of expectation, etc., since it has long long long long been engaged in voting affairs and personnel management, or it is not possible to expect that the defendant does not visit the polling station only when other candidates know that other candidates visit the polling station.

This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant not guilty on May 24, 1998 and around 20:00 of the same month and around 07:50 of the same month on the grounds that the defendant published false facts with respect to the non-indicted 1 and 2 who used the same candidate for the defendant to the Kim Jong-soo and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, which correspond thereto, the court or investigation agency of Kim Jong-hee's testimony is difficult to believe, and as long as he does not believe the above Kim Jong-hee's statement, the remaining evidence merely the evidence that the defendant taken such words from Kim Jong-hee and Kim Jong-hee and the non-indicted 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this facts. In light of the records, the court below's measures are just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)