[1] Where a local council member publishes and distributes a pledge on a specific case that should be dealt with during the following term of office in the report on parliamentary activities, whether the crime of violation of Article 93 (1) of the former Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act is established (affirmative)

[2] Whether posting his/her photograph within the scope of the purpose of the report on parliamentary activities is permissible in a letter of invitation to inform the local council members that they should hold the report on parliamentary activities simply before the beginning of the election campaign period (affirmative)

[3] In a case where the appellate court found the whole guilty of several crimes related to the commercial concurrence, but some of them are not innocent, whether the appellate court shall reverse the entire appellate judgment (affirmative)

[1] Article 111 of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 5508 of Feb. 6, 1998) provides that a local council member shall not report the parliamentary activities from the beginning date of the election period to the election day, and thus, a report on the parliamentary activities before the beginning date of the election period shall be allowed. However, the permission here is only a pure report on the parliamentary activities conducted by the local council member as the representative of the local council member, and there is no election campaign in the form of a report on the parliamentary activities, and it does not constitute an election campaign under the name of the report on the parliamentary activities. The act of the local council member by posting a written report on his parliamentary activities and a campaign for specific matters to be handled for the following tenure beyond posting the report on his parliamentary activities and a letter of courtesy personnel

[2] According to Article 111 of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 5508 of Feb. 6, 1998), a local council member's parliamentary activity through a report on parliamentary activity before the beginning of the election period is allowed, and it is possible to publish his/her photograph in the report on parliamentary activity within the scope of its purpose. Thus, the publication of his/her photograph shall be allowed within the scope of the purpose of the report on parliamentary activity in balance with the letter of invitation informing that the report on parliamentary activity is held.

[3] In a case where the appellate court found a person guilty of all crimes in a commercial concurrent relationship, but some of them are not innocent, the appellate court found the person guilty of all of the crimes to be guilty shall have a difference in the case where only a part of them is found guilty, and thereby having affected the conclusion of the judgment, the appellate court's judgment shall not be reversed.

[1] Articles 93(1), 111, and 255(2)5 of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (amended by Act No. 5508 of Feb. 6, 1998) / [2] Articles 93(1), 111, and 255(2)5 of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (amended by Act No. 5508 of Feb. 6, 1998) / [3] Article 40 of the Criminal Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hun-Ma9, 77, 84, and 90 (Hun-Ma8-1, 289), Supreme Court Decision 97Do1294, Sept. 5, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3193) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Do384, Dec. 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13473), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2608, Sept. 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3650)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Busan General Law Office, Attorney Shin Jae-in

Busan High Court Decision 98No757 delivered on December 3, 1998

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's act of distributing the invitation letter of this case and the report on parliamentary activity report of this case was to induce the support in the election to be held beyond the scope of the report on parliamentary activity since he merely presents the contents of the report on parliamentary activity to the pledge clause beyond the level of reporting or promoting the defendant's parliamentary activity activity activity activity, and it appears that the defendant's act of distributing the report on parliamentary activity report of this case was to go beyond the scope of the report on parliamentary activity of the defendant.

Article 111 of the Act provides that a local council member shall not report his parliamentary activities from the beginning date of the election campaign period to the election day, and thus, it is permitted to report his parliamentary activities before the beginning date of the election campaign period. However, it is only purely reported on parliamentary activities conducted by a local council member as a representative of the local council member, and it does not constitute an election campaign in the form of a report on parliamentary activities (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 96Hun-Ma9, 77, 84, 90, March 28, 1996). The decision of the court below is justified in the determination that the act of distributing a pledge on specific matters that a local council member should handle in the following term beyond the scope of the report on parliamentary activities, beyond posting his report on his parliamentary activities and ordinary personnel affairs, constitutes Article 93 (1) of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1294, Sept. 5, 197).

However, since the parliamentary activities through a report on parliamentary activities are permitted before the beginning of the election campaign period and should be allowed to publish photographs in the report on parliamentary activities within the scope of its purpose, posting his/her photograph in the invitation letter stating that the meeting should be held in balance with the end of his/her personnel affairs should be allowed within the scope of the purpose of the report on parliamentary activities. However, there is an error of misunderstanding the legal principles on the report on parliamentary activities in other opinions that the posting of photographs in the invitation letter is illegal. Meanwhile, the court below found the defendant guilty on all of the grounds that the defendant's act of distributing the invitation letter of parliamentary activities and distributing the report on parliamentary activities is a commercial concurrent crime. In addition, the court below found that there is a difference in the case where only a part of the defendant is found guilty and affected the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Do384, Dec. 9, 198; 9Do2608, Sept. 29, 1995).

3. 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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)