The case holding that it is sufficient to view the act of a candidate for a regional constituency to establish an organization "○○ Love Campaign Headquarters" in order to raise his/her personal guidance and hold an interview special lecture and a university entrance presentation meeting under the supervision of this organization in light of the time, motive, target of the event, etc., it is sufficient to view that the act is likely to affect an election prohibited by the former Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act.

Articles 89(2) and 256(2)1(g) of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Illegal Act (Amended by Act No. 7189, Mar. 12, 2004);

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2932 Delivered on March 25, 2004 (Gong2006Ha, 1447) 2005Do303 Delivered on June 27, 2006

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do303 Delivered on June 27, 2006

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No1284 Delivered on September 28, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Examining the evidence of the judgment below in light of the records, it is sufficient to view the defendant's act of holding a large interview special course and a university entrance presentation session through the ○○ Love Movement Headquarters as an act to create a situation favorable to the defendant and to have an effect on the election, and it is reasonable to find the defendant guilty of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the defendant did not mention about the election or publicize the defendant during each of the above events. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the "act affecting the election" under the former Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Election Illegal Act (amended by Act No. 7189 of March 12, 2004), or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the freedom of a political party, freedom of election campaign, freedom of clarity of the criminal justice, the principle of excessive prohibition, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)