logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.08.27 2015도8395
공직선거법위반
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case on April 26, 2013 and September 9, 2013, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who intends to become a candidate” and “an act of promoting the business of the candidate” under Article 86(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B, on April 26, 2013, September 9, 2013, and March 27, 2014, and violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (information and communications network infringement, etc.). In so doing, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who intends to become a candidate” and “an act of publicizing the enemy” under Article 86(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “an act of publicizing the enemy.”

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants’ violation of the Public Official Election Act as of September 30, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants falls under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

arrow