2013Do5389 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. A;

2. B

Defendant 2 and Prosecutor

Attorney C (Defendant 1)

Law Firm F (For Defendant 2)

Attorney CE

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Do4201 Decided May 2, 2013

January 16, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants on the charges of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the Defendants’ expression of intention to offer the public office, on the grounds that the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant A would be able to manage the political career by using the I organization in the sense that he would assist in the future L's political activities in the future, while the Defendants divided the talk about L and L's resignation.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by recognizing facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to Defendant B’s expression of intent to provide property benefits to Defendant B, on the ground that Defendant B’s expression of intent to maintain dignity for about 10 months before the presidential election after the resignation of the candidate can be recognized as having expressed his/her intent to provide property benefits, such as the cost of maintaining dignity, in return for the resignation of the candidate. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of free evaluation of evidence by recognizing facts in violation of logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young