[1] The method of determining whether an act constitutes an act of supporting or opposing a specific political party or candidate prohibited by the Public Officials Election Act and the Prevention of Election Malpractice Act

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted the president of the branch on the violation of the Election of Public Officials Act, the violation of the Election of Public Officials Act, and the violation of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that the campaign for signing a teacher planned and implemented by the former school leader and the notice of the assembly and demonstration exceeds the scope of "a simple opinion or expression of intent on election" as prescribed by the Election of Public Officials and Prevention

[1] In determining whether a certain act constitutes an act of supporting or opposing a specific political party or candidate prohibited under Articles 60(1), 93(1), and 107 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice, and Article 65(2) of the State Public Officials Act, it shall be determined whether the act entails not only the reason that the act is prohibited under the pretext of the act, but also the manner of the act, i.e., the specific contents of the time, place, motive, method, act, etc. of the act, and whether the act entails the purpose of supporting or opposing the specific political party or candidate prohibited under the above provision.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acquitted the president of the branch on the violation of the Election of Public Officials Act and the Act on Prevention of Election Malpractice and the Act on Prevention of Unlawful Election, and the charges of violation of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that the acts are active and planned to objectively recognize the intent to oppose the existing political group and support a specific political party as an alternative, in view of the process of planning, method of promotion, scope of participation, specific expressions, etc., even though the text of the Assembly and Demonstration was not directly referred to a specific political party which was planned and implemented by the former school group prior to the general election, and that the act was in excess of the scope of the " simple statement or expression of intent concerning the election" under

[1] Articles 60(1), 93(1), and 107 of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005) and Article 65(2) of the State Public Officials Act / [2] Articles 60(1), 93(1), and 107 of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005); Article 65(2) of the State Public Officials Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2673 Decided October 10, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2002Do315 Decided April 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 941) Constitutional Court en banc Order 2004Hun-Ba1 Decided May 14, 2004 (Hun-Gong93, 574)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Gwangju High Court Decision 2005No54 decided Mar. 24, 2005

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded that the contents of the Assembly report of this case are likely to be deemed to have received signature by opposing the candidates of the specific political party Hanna Party, Democratic Party, Voluntary Party, and open Korea and the above political party, which are specific persons, and by soliciting voting to support the Democratic Labor Party and its candidates, and by conducting a signature campaign. However, the "Declaration of Support for Democratic Labor Party" at the Jeon school and Cho Jong-chul, which was held on March 10, 2004, cannot be practical because of the existence of a violation of the Election Act. However, the court below delivered the policy of the Democratic Labor Party to the teachers under its control for supporting the Democratic Labor Party in the form of personal correspondence, which is the chairman. ② The contents of the Assembly report of this case did not use the word " Democratic Labor Party" at all, and its main contents should be judged by the leading party's election to criticize the Presidential resolution of the National Assembly's impeachment bill, which is a separate opinion and seal of the Central Labor Party.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

A. Article 60(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act prohibits a public official, i.e., an active or planned act necessary and advantageous to the election campaign, i.e., election or votes obtained by a specific candidate or defeat, and Article 93(1) of the Official Election Act prohibits an act of distributing documents, etc. containing the contents of supporting, recommending or opposing a political party or candidate in order to exercise an influence on the election, and Article 107 of the Official Election Act obtains signatures and seals from electors for an election campaign; Article 65(2) of the State Public Officials Act prohibits a public official from holding a campaign or soliciting him/her not to cast a vote to support or oppose a specific political party or person in an election; Article 60(1)5 of the State Public Officials Act prohibits a public official from holding a signature campaign or soliciting him/her not to do so; and Article 200(2)4 of the Act prohibits a specific act of 00 times or recommending him/her to cast a signature campaign or recommending him/her not to do so.

B. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

Jeon school assistant is an affiliate organization of the Korean Democratic Labor Group that joined the Korean Democratic Labor Group at the time of the establishment on May 28, 1989. Man school assistant members are the representatives of the Korean Democratic Labor Group. Jeon school assistant members are the members of the Korean Democratic Labor Group, and Jeon school assistant members are the members of the Korean Central Executive Committee of the Korean Democratic Labor Group, and the senior vice-chairperson of the Korean Labor Group concurrently serve as the members of the Korean Democratic Labor Group, and some of the members of the organizations and organizations overlap. Jeon school assistant has taken the same position as the Korean Democratic Labor Group, a superior organization, concerning various political, economic, and social issues, including the usual education policy. Moreover, the ratio of the total members of the Democratic Labor Party to the Democratic Labor Group was close to the extent that it reaches approximately 43.03% as of June 2003.

Around February 11, 2004, the Korean Democratic Labor Group determined the "total 4.15 Election Policies" of the main text, "The 4.15 Election Commissions," and "The 4.15 Election Commissions, which was formed by the Korean Democratic Labor Group, shall be the opportunity to change the nature of the political party into the remuneration for the advancement of the political nature by entering the National Assembly through proportional representation system in the party registry. The Democratic Labor Group shall support all candidates of the Democratic Labor Party, discover and recommend candidates of the Democratic Labor Party, and raise funds from the Democratic Labor Group, thereby subsidizing the expenses for the election of the Democratic Labor Party by raising funds."

On February 2004, Non-Indicted 1, who is the chairperson of the Jeon school and the member of the Central Committee for Execution of the Democratic Labor General, held the Jeon school Cho Jong-dae Central Executive Committee for Police Officers (the highest executive body of the Jeon school group. the senior executive body of the Jeon school group and the executive branch of the City/Do, etc.) and delivered the above "the 4.15 senior executive policy" to the Defendants, who are the chief of Gwangju and Jeonnam branch, while attending the meeting, and decided on the "the 4.15 senior executive policy guidelines" with the contents of "the candidate support of the Democratic Labor Party, the realization of inventive politics through the Democratic Labor Party, the finding of candidates, and the raising of political funds."

On February 23, 2004, at a regular representative meeting, which is the highest decision-making body for a full-time election campaign, Nonindicted Party 1, in the presence of the Defendants, reported the aforementioned “policy guidelines for the full-time 4/15 line response.” At the above competition, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 3, and Nonindicted Party 4 representatives of the Democratic Labor Party were present, and Nonindicted Party 4 was demoted to the effect that “the realization of a full-time correction” was “the realization of a full-time correction.” At the above competition, Nonindicted Party 4 adopted a resolution to the effect that “the liquidation of a long-term and perishable politics in order to realize a full-time employee’s political power in the 4/15 total number of workers,” which was the progress of the meetings of the Democratic Labor General and the full-time school group and major discussions were widely known to the general public through the National Assembly, the website, Internet homepage of

On the other hand, as a result of the discussion about the “4/15-line response project plan” prepared in accordance with the “Act on the 4/15-line Election of the Democratic Labor Group,” which was held on March 10, 2004 at the Jeon school Central Committee, the Defendants were present at the meeting, and some of the said project plan were selected and adopted, but the said plan was intended to “the declaration of support by referring to the Democratic Labor Party” was difficult due to the issue of the election law.

However, upon the resolution of impeachment prosecution at the National Assembly on March 12, 2004, Nonindicted Party 1, etc., etc., which was rapidly called at the National Assembly around March 16, 2004, decided to conduct the instant signature movement and the assembly and the assembly at the former Twitter Emergency Execution Committee, and, at the former Twitter’s headquarters, the assembly and demonstration was sent to 16 branches nationwide with the purport that “not only the opposition to the nuclear force, but also other remuneration and political groups, and support the inventive reform political force.” The Defendants and the heads of each branch including the Defendants sent the assembly and demonstration at around March 16, 200, upon signing of the teachers with approximately 20,000 teachers throughout the country at the above assembly and sending them to the headquarters. In some cases, including the former Twitter’s headquarters and Jeonnam branch, Gwangju and Jeonnam branch held a branch conference and posted the report materials on the Internet homepage to the same effect as the above press report materials.

In addition, the part of the Assembly’s ruling that was sent by the Defendants directly to the National Assembly should be 12th day of March, 204, which was the same as that of the 5th anniversary of the election of the National Assembly members, and that of the 5th day of the election of the National Assembly members, such as the one-time election and the one-time election of the members of the National Assembly, were the same as that of the 5th anniversary of the election of the election of the members of the National Assembly, and the one-time election of the members of the National Assembly, and the one-time election of the members of the National Assembly, which was disprovingd by the 5th day of the election of the members of the National Assembly. However, the 5th day of the election of the members of the National Assembly, such as the one-time election of the members of the National Assembly, should not be able to be unconstitutional, and the one-time election of the members of the National Assembly, should not be able to be unconstitutional.

In addition, on March 27, 2004, the previous school homepage was posted on the summary of "the previous school library decided to be a member of the National Assembly for the realization of inventive politics and actively respond to the 4/15th election of workers through the National Assembly. The political policy of the previous school that is a member of the Democratic Labor Group was to implement the political power of workers through the Democratic Labor Party, which is a political policy of the Democratic Labor Group." On March 31, 2004, it was posted on the summary of "the previous school library will be a member of the National Assembly on April 15, and in the Democratic Labor Group, it was collected a political fund for the candidate."

On the other hand, it is widely known among the general public that the Democratic Labor Party has taken itself as the " clean and progressive reform political force" that can represent the disadvantaged classes such as workers, farmers, and ordinary people.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the former Tri assistant Head Office and the president of the branch, including the Defendants, who were members of the former Tri assistant Head Office and the president of the branch, had been working for the preparation to actively support the Democratic Labor Party in accordance with the "4/15 Election Policy" of the Democratic Labor Group, which was a superior organization, such as would like to prepare for the 4/15 line from February 12, 2004, which had been serving as a member of the former Tri assistant Head Office, and had been working for the preparation to implement it. While the National Assembly decided on February 12, 2004, the former Tri assistant Head Office and the president of the branch, including the Defendants, failed to adopt and implement the plan to directly refer to the Democratic Labor Party" as a specific business plan, it was sufficiently possible to recognize that the former president’s impeachment was led by the resolution of impeachment of impeachment prosecution as well as the former president and the latter, who were working for the National Assembly, as well as the latter.

All the grounds that the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged are difficult to accept.

① According to the above, the Central Committee held on March 10, 2004: (a) deemed the plan to support the Democratic Labor Party related to the April 15 total amount, including the proposal to “a declaration of support by referring to the Democratic Labor Party” as its business plan; (b) among them, the intent to support the Democratic Labor Party at the time of adoption and implementation of some items such as political fund-raising, etc., was firm; and (c) although the above Central Committee did not adopt the plan for support due to the violation of the Election Act; (c) on March 12, 2004, following the resolution of the National Assembly against the Democratic Labor Party on March 16, 2004, it was impossible to pass the signature campaign and the proposal to support the Democratic Labor Party on March 16, 2004, on the ground that Nonindicted Party 1’s letter of support by the Democratic Labor Party and notice on the homepage of the Democratic Labor Party on March 30, 2014.”

(2) According to the records, the assembly report of this case provides that “Korean Party, Democratic Party, and Self-Governing Party,” clearly named at the first head as a group of corruption coverage. Not only the resolution of impeachment prosecution which was pending at the time, but also the amendment of the Private School Act and the opening of educational and agricultural markets, etc., which were discussed at the 16th National Assembly, are evaluated and displayed as “defluence and anti-defluence” related to the above camping party’s parliamentary activities at the 4/15 total period, and there was no strong assertion of “political conflict” for the purpose of historical withdrawal of the above corruption organization. In the middle part, it is difficult for the court below to have determined that the public’s rejection against the ruling of the government as to the ruling of this case was merely a purely unlawful political fund, unreasonable market principle, educational market-oriented policy, etc., and that the public’s rejection to the ruling of this case as to the party against whom the assembly and demonstration was proposed as a strategy for election against the National Assembly member.

In addition, even if the Assembly and Demonstration did not directly refer to the “ Democratic Labor Party” under the Assembly and Demonstration Act with awareness of the issue of violation of the Election Act, in light of the various circumstances as seen earlier, insofar as it is clearly recognized that the “Voluntary Labor Party” referred to in the Assembly and Demonstration Act support the “ Democratic Labor Party”, it cannot be deemed that the Assembly and Demonstration did not merely indicate its name.

(3) The Defendants’ statements that large parties, such as Korea-China Party, Democratic Party, and Self-Governing Party, and women and the Government are “defe political groups” and “former political groups”, and that are strongly asserted through the 4/15 total period of 4/15, the Defendants’ statements to the effect that the political parties, among those who belong to the above political parties, may be included in an inventive reform political force, may not be accepted, and that they cannot be deemed to be merely a vindication to escape from criminal punishment, in light of the overall context of the instant text.

④ As pointed out earlier, the “Declaration of Support of Democratic Labor Party” that was not adopted by the Central Execution Committee on March 10, 2004 was adopted in a number of months at the Open Central Execution Committee, not because the “Declaration of Support for Democratic Labor Party” was adopted by members of the Central Execution Committee at the time of the Regular Execution Committee, but was inevitable choice due to the issue of election law, and thus, the intention to adopt the said Declaration of Support was reversed. As such, it is not deemed to have been entirely decided regardless of the previous business plan, since the “Declaration of Support for Democratic Labor Party” was not adopted by the Central Execution Committee.

⑤ Although the “Voluntary Report” and “compensation” are relative concepts, in light of the series of the democratic labor group and the previous curriculum that took place two months prior to the 4/15 total line as seen earlier, it would be reasonable in light of the empirical rule to regard the “voluntary labor force” as referring to the democratic labor force and the democratic labor force led by the former and the previous curriculum. In addition, it is difficult to understand that a public announcement of the public announcement of the public announcement of a political party’s entry into the National Assembly, which took place with other political forces, who did not have any particular political solidarity relationship during the 4/15 total line, was presented.

In addition, in light of the planning process, promotion method, scope of participation, specific expressions, etc. of the instant signature campaign and assembly as seen earlier, it is evident that it goes beyond the scope of “a simple opinion or expression of intent on election” as stipulated in the Public Election Act, and is an active and planned act that objects to the existing political forces, such as Hanna Party and Korea open party, and that the intent to support the democratic labor party as an alternative force can be objectively recognized.

D. Therefore, the court below dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the facts charged of violation of the State Public Officials Act due to the election campaign, distribution of documents, etc. by unlawful means, each election campaign for public office by signature and seal exercise, violation of the Election Prevention Act, solicitation of voting, and signature exercise, among the facts charged in the case of this case, constitutes an unlawful act of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, and the prosecutor's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal on the charge of innocence portion of the judgment of the court below is with merit, and since this part of the facts charged and the facts charged on the violation of the State Public Officials Act due to collective act found guilty by the court below constitute ordinary concurrent crimes, the judgment of the court below on the whole facts charged of this case is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)