[1] The meaning of the act of aiding and abetting a political party under Article 84 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice and the criteria for its determination

[2] The case holding that the act constitutes a political party vote under Article 84 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

[1] An act prohibited by Article 84 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election refers to all acts that reveal the fact that a candidate under the prohibition of Article 84 is supported by a specific political party or that a candidate is recommended by a specific political party. Specifically, in determining whether an act constitutes a political party competition prohibited by the same Article, the time when the act is performed, geographical conditions, the intent of the actor, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account, and in determining whether a specific political party supports the relevant candidate or recommends the relevant candidate when the general voters of the relevant constituency come into contact with the expression, it shall be in accordance with whether the specific political party supports the relevant candidate, or it shall be accepted as indicating that the specific political party recommended the relevant candidate.

[2] The case holding that both the contents of a campaign speech at the joint campaign speech meeting of a candidate without a specific political party, the use of a campaign speech at a private campaign speech meeting, and the contents of a campaign speech at a specific political party's campaign speech meeting, and the attachment of photographs on a certain political party's election campaign vehicle for the Do governor candidate constitutes a political party's campaign act under Article 84

[1] Article 84 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election / [2] Article 84 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do556 delivered on May 11, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 1206) Supreme Court Decision 99Do279 delivered on May 25, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1314)

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor and Defendant 1

Attorneys Yellow-ho et al. and nine others

Seoul High Court Decision 98No3541 delivered on May 18, 1999

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the evidence, found the facts as a candidate for the market election conducted on June 4, 1998 by Defendant 1, who wishes to be a candidate for the market election conducted on June 4, 1998, and found that the defendant 1 found in the co-defendant's house of the first instance court around 07:00 on May 10, 1998, which is the restriction period for the act of contribution under the Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Unlawful Act (the Public Official Election Act; hereinafter referred to as the "Public Official Election Act"). The court below found that the defendant 1 attempted to leave the house as a candidate for the market election and contributed them to the assembly of newspapers containing 2,00,000 won in cash, as he planned to leave the house as a candidate for the market, or as he did not know the facts in violation of the rules of evidence

The grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

2. As to Defendant 1’s second ground of appeal

An act prohibited by Article 84 of the Public Official Election Act refers to all acts that reveal the fact that a candidate without parents is supported by a specific political party or that a candidate is recommended by a specific political party. Specifically, in determining whether an act constitutes a political party act prohibited by the same Article, the time when the act is performed, geographical conditions, intent of an actor, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account in light of the time when the act is performed, geographical conditions, intent of the actor, etc., and whether it shall be accepted as supporting a specific political party or indicating that a specific political party has recommended the candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do279 delivered on May 25, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1 was already elected as a candidate for the election campaign at the above district council around April 14, 198. Co-defendant 1, who was a candidate for the above district council by acquiring the above facts by evidence. Defendant 1 was not a candidate for the election campaign at the district council, and Defendant 1 was not a candidate for the election campaign at the district council. Defendant 1 was not a candidate for the election campaign nor a candidate for the new election campaign. Defendant 1 and the above co-defendant 2, who was not a candidate for the election campaign at the district council at least 9,000, were not a candidate for the election campaign. Defendant 1 and the above co-defendant 3, who was merely a candidate for the election campaign, were not a candidate for the election campaign. Defendant 1 and the above co-defendant 1, who was merely a candidate for the election campaign at the district council at least 9,000, will not be a candidate for the election campaign.

The grounds of appeal on this cannot be accepted.

3. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the facts charged that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 donated KRW 500,000,00 for Defendant 1 to Co-Defendant 2 at around June 3, 1998, the court below found Defendant 2 and Co-defendant 2 at the court of first instance, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 at the court of first instance, during the period of the above market election campaign, they supported and advertised Non-Party 2 at the court of first instance, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 at the court of first instance, and Defendant 4 at the court of first instance, respectively, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 at the court of first instance who left for two hours with the closing time of the election campaign. In light of the fact that there seems to be no reason to make a contribution act, there is no reason to believe the statement at the prosecutor's office of the court of first instance, and otherwise, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 were delivered to Defendant 1 at the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence to find the facts guilty.

The grounds of appeal on this 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)