[1] Whether the act of distributing an organ of a labor union that posted an article about an election constitutes a violation of Article 93 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts (negative)

[2] The meaning of "when it comes to the public interest" as a serious fact under the proviso of Article 251 of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act

[3] The case holding that although the contents posted in a trade union criticize a prospective National Assembly candidate, it is true fact that the illegality of such contents is excluded in line with the public interest

[1] Under Article 87 of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 6265 of Feb. 16, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), a trade union may recommend to support, oppose, or oppose a specific political party or candidate in its name or in its representative's name during the election period. On the other hand, a trade union's organ or other publication that carries an article about an election under Article 95 of the Act may be published and distributed in ordinary ways, i.e., within the previous method and scope., an article about an election. The "article about an election" refers to an article about an election in favor of, or against, a certain political party, including news and comment, and an objective statement about an election. It refers to the presentation of a news report that includes news and comment on a political party candidate's political views, etc., and it refers to the discussion and criticism of a political party's political opinion, etc., and regardless of the distribution of a article about an election by a political party or an election campaign organization under Article 95 of the Act.

[2] Even if an act of slandering a candidate is an act of slandering a candidate, illegality is excluded (the proviso of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act). Here, the phrase “the fact alleged in this context conforms to the truth” is sufficient if it conforms to objective facts in light of the overall purport of the contents thereof, and it is unreasonable even if there is a little difference or little exaggeration in the detailed contents, and the term “the time for the public interest” is not always a motive superior to the private interest, even if there is both parties, and it is reasonable if it is recognized.

[3] The case holding that although the contents posted in a trade union defame a candidate for a National Assembly member, it is true and illegal as it is in line with the public interest.

[1] Articles 87, 93(1), 95, and 255(2)5 of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 6265 of Feb. 16, 200) / [2] Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election / [3] Article 251 of the Public Official Election and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act

Defendant

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 2000No701 delivered on September 21, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

As a vice head of the Hyundai Heavy Industries Trade Union, no person may distribute documents, drawings, printed materials, etc. showing the name of a political party or the name of a candidate to support, recommend, or oppose a political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day.

A. On January 24, 200, the Compilation Office of the above trade union issued 10,000 copies of the current Labor-Management Area newspapers and distributed 10,000 copies of the current Labor-Management Area apartment complexes in the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, containing the contents of support for the Democratic Labor Party, such as “The Democratic Labor Party was prepared to have a wind on the Democratic Labor Party created by people, which will cause a strust political plate.”

나. 당선되지 못하게 할 목적으로, 2000. 1. 말경 위 노조 사무실에서 "대기업의 고문이라는 자리에 있으면서 명예박사 학위증을 많이 갖고 금뺏지도 가슴에 달고 축구외교를 하는 사람을 보고 정말 훌륭한 사람이구나 하고 생각할 사람은 아무도 없다. 대기업 고문이라는 자리는 아버지로부터 물려 받았으니 그렇다 치고 박사학위증은 돈만 내면 받을 수 있는 것이니 또 그렇다 치고 금뺏지도 돈으로 땄다 하면 뽑아준 선량한 사람들을 욕할 것 같은 생각이 든다마는 그것도 지가 잘해서 금뺏지를 달았다 쳐주자. 그런데 월드컵 축구 외교를 한답시고 해외로 나돌아다니는 사람에게 금뺏지가 꼭 필요한가? 그것은 또 다른 욕심을 향한 상징일 뿐이다." 등의 울산 동구지역 무소속 정몽준 후보예정자를 비방하는 내용을 게재한 민주항해 노조지 제65호, 2000. 2월호 7,000여 부를 발행하여 위 회사 정문 6개소에 출퇴근하는 직원들에게 배부함과 아울러 공연히 사실을 적시하여 위 정몽준 후보자를 비방하였다.

2. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 87 of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 6265 of Feb. 16, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") permits a trade union to support, oppose, or recommend a specific political party or candidate during the election period, unlike other organizations. However, the trade union provides that a trade union may perform the above act in accordance with the method and procedure prescribed by other provisions of the Act and within the scope of the restriction, and it does not purport that the above act may be performed in disregarding other provisions of the Act and without limitation. It is clear that each of the above acts by the defendant is in violation of Article 93 (1) of the Act prohibiting the distribution and posting of documents, books, and documents, and Article 251 of the Act prohibiting the defamation of candidates, etc.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept in the following respects.

A. As to the distribution of a document by any unlawful means

A trade union may, under Article 87 of the Act, support, oppose, or recommend a specific political party or candidate in its name or in the name of its representative during the election period, and on the other hand, publish and distribute the machinery and other publications of the trade union which has an article on the election under Article 95 of the Act within the ordinary method, that is, in other words, within the previous method and scope. The term "article on the election" means an article on the election of a candidate (including a person intending to become a candidate) or an article on the election relation which is favorable or unfavorable to a specific political party, and the term "author" means a delivery of objective facts, including a news and comment, and the term "statement" means a discussion and criticism of the political views and political views of a political party, etc.

According to the records, the current Central Labor Relations Commission reported the fact that the Democratic Labor Relations Commission was established for the purpose of distributing the above company's employees to local residents such as the above company's family members, and that the National Assembly resolution rate of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the 15th National Assembly was actually high, and added comments that the member of the National Assembly of the member of the member of the 15th National Assembly was irrelevant to the activities of the member of the National Assembly, and published and distributed them. The democratic voyage was an organization manufactured for the purpose of distributing the above trade union to the members of the member of the member, and was distributed through discussions and criticism comments.

Thus, the current Central Labor Relations Commission and Democratic Navigation are the agencies of the above labor union that posted articles related to the election under Article 95 of the Act. Thus, even though it can be punished as a violation of Article 95 of the Act in the case of distributing them by means other than ordinary methods, it does not include the act of conducting election campaign by means of distributing and posting documents, drawings, etc., not under Article 93 of the Act, which is a violation of Article 95 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to Articles 93 and 95 of the Act, which determine that each of the above acts of the defendant violates Article 93 of the Act, and thereby did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

B. Points of slandering candidates

Even if an act of slandering a candidate is an act of slandering a candidate, illegality shall be removed if the alleged facts are consistent with the truth and are related to the public interest (proviso of Article 251 of the Act). Here, the phrase “the fact stated in this context conforms to the truth” refers to what is sufficient if the material part is consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content, and even if there is a little degree of difference in the detailed contents or a little exaggerated expression, and the term “the time for the public interest” refers to the existence of both parties, even if the public interest is not always superior to the

Considering the fact that a large-scale adviser became an advisor due to the influence of the public health stand and Hamon, and the attendance rate of the National Assembly was extremely low due to the diplomatic trip of the World Cup, and that an honorary doctor’s degree was recognized as not unrelated to social status or contribution, even if there is a little degree of exaggeration, the Defendant’s factual perception is consistent with the truth, and its contents are related to the public interest as useful materials to assess the eligibility as a candidate for the Democratic Labor Party supported by the Hyundai Heavy Industries Trade Union, and even if it starts from the private purpose to select the candidate for the Democratic Labor Party supported by the Hyundai Heavy Industries Trade Union, on the other hand, in light of the fact that the public interest was an important motive to exercise appropriate voting rights by providing the relevant member or company employees with information to determine the eligibility for the Magmon’s eligibility, it is also recognized as reasonable between private and public interest.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant guilty of the defendant's act should be dismissed pursuant to the proviso of Article 251 of the Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the proviso of Article 251 of the Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)