2014Do10183 Violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm B

Attorney C

I Law Firm

Attorney D, J, and K

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013No1175 Decided July 18, 2014

November 26, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that (1) the part on the leaflet of Article 1 subparag. 13 (hereinafter “instant provision”) of the former Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11401, Mar. 21, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) does not violate the principle of clarity. (2) The Defendant’s act of attaching the posters of the same Defendant as the facts of the first instance judgment, in full view of the circumstances indicated in its holding, including the circumstances where the distance of 55 pages on the housing fence owned by another person has already reached approximately 300 meters, and it was more holding the posters of Chapter 150, the Defendant’s act of attaching the posters of this case constitutes the constituent elements of the instant provision, and (3) even if the Defendant’s act of attaching the posters of this case is deemed justifiable, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the method or means, or by failing to obtain the Defendant’s consent of the owner of the housing, etc.

Of the grounds of appeal, the part concerning the argument that the lower court’s determination on the circumstances based on the judgment is nothing more than an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even after examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of clarity in the principle of no crime without law, the legislative purpose and prohibition of abuse of the former Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the freedom of artistic creation and expression, and the comparison and balancing with property rights, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2013Hun-Ba385, May 28, 2015).

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

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il