Requirements for the establishment of a crime of door-to-door visit under Articles 255 (1) 17 and 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice.

The crime of door-to-door visits under Articles 255 (1) 17 and 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act is established when a visit was made to interview other persons, as well as where a visit was made to interview other persons, but the visiter did not enter because of the absence of the visiter.

Articles 106(1) and 255(1)17 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jong-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 99No136 delivered on May 18, 1999

All appeals are dismissed.

Each ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely for defense counsel) is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the non-indicted 1, the representative of the non-indicted 1's organization which has promoted apartment construction in order to improve the poor residential environment of the non-indicted 1's Jung-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, the first instance court, has a provision that "the non-indicted 1's underground parking lot is excluded from supply free of charge" in the basic agreement prepared with the school foundation, the other party to the land lawsuit, the Sido Institute of Education, the corporation, the project implementer, etc. on December 6, 1997. If the non-indicted 1, who is the above 12,364,000 residents excludes the above underground parking lot from supply free of charge, and the non-indicted 1's act of distributing the above documents to the non-indicted 1's party to the above 1's election without charge, and the defendant 1 and the above defendant 1's act of distributing the above documents in violation of the rules of evidence and its dissenting opinion.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The crime of door-to-door visits prescribed in Articles 255 (1) 17 and 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is established when a visit was made to meet other persons as well as a visit was made to interview with other persons, but the visiter was not made out of the absence (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1659, Jul. 22, 1975). Thus, the judgment below convicting Defendant 1 of the crime that Defendant 1 visited the house of the house and the house of the lowest Gunr, which is alleged in the grounds of appeal, is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on door-to-door visits or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)