[1] Whether Article 93 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, which prohibits the distribution and posting of documents and drawings by unlawful means, violates the Constitution (negative)

[2] The case holding that an act of visiting a Dong office within a constituency at the time when a person elected as a chairman of a political party's district did not have an election day to deliver a name with the mark of the affiliated political party and the mark of the district party constitutes a crime of violating the Act on Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, which entails objective and intent to influence his election from an objective point of view

[3] The case holding that it constitutes a crime of publishing false facts if a candidate made a campaign speech to the effect that other candidates in competition did not pay the global income tax on justifiable grounds, and that the amount of tax on earned income was not specified as global income tax, while he made a campaign speech to the effect that he did not pay the global income tax despite being aware

[1] The restriction on the prescribed acts in relation to the election under Article 93(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act is a combined restriction for the common interest of all the citizens by guaranteeing the freedom and fairness of the election, and therefore the legitimacy of the legislative purpose is recognized. The restriction has the meaning as an institutional device to guarantee the freedom and fairness of the election within the meaning of participation, as well as an effective means other than prohibiting the prescribed acts for a certain period. In particular, it is difficult to present the reasonable and appropriate means in that the restriction is made on the premise that the restriction is "in order to influence the election". Such restriction is an inevitable and inevitable measure for securing the fairness of the election, and it does not violate the minimum principle of infringement, and it does not violate the principle of balance because it does not violate the principle of excessive prohibition, and it does not violate the fundamental rights of the press as well as the fundamental rights of the press.

[2] The case holding that an act of visiting a Dong office within a constituency at the time when a person elected as a chairman of a political party's district did not have an election day to deliver a name with the mark of the affiliated political party and the mark of the district party constitutes an act accompanied by objective and intent to influence his election, and constitutes a crime of violating the Act on Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election.

[3] The case holding that it constitutes the crime of publishing false facts if a candidate made a campaign speech to the effect that other candidates in competition did not pay the global income tax on justifiable grounds, and that the amount of tax on earned income was not specified as global income tax, while he made a campaign speech knowing that he did not pay the global income tax, even though he was paid

[1] Article 93(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election / [2] Articles 93(1) and 255(2)5 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election / [3] Article 250(2) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 9Hun-Ba92, 200Hun-Ba39, 2000Hun-Ma167, 168, 199, 205,280 Decided August 30, 2001 (Hun-Ba60, 825)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Jeong-sung et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No1574 delivered on December 11, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. As to the distribution of unlawful printed materials

Restrictions on certain acts in relation to this election under Article 93(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice are limited to the purpose of ensuring the freedom and fairness of the election and ensuring the common interests of the electors or the whole citizens, so the legitimacy of the legislative purpose is recognized. The restriction not only has the meaning as an institutional device to guarantee the freedom and fairness of the election within the meaning of participation, but also has the meaning of an effective means to prevent harm other than to prohibit the prescribed act for a certain period. In particular, it is difficult to present an effective means in order to prevent harm. In particular, it is recognized that the restriction takes place under the premise that the restriction is "in order to influence the election". Such restriction is an inevitable measure for securing the fairness of the election, and it does not violate the minimum principle of infringement, and it does not violate the principle of balance because it does not violate the principle of excessive prohibition, but also does not violate the principle of freedom of speech and public duty, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the freedom of election campaign or the contents of the press are infringed at least 90.

In light of the above legal principles and records, if the defendant visited the Dong office in the constituency to inform that he was elected as the chairperson at the end of two months from the election day at the time of election, the defendant's act was objectively recognized as an act accompanying the purpose and intent of influencing the election of the party to which he belongs, and there was a visit to inform that the motive of the visit was elected as the chairperson at the place where the accident occurred during that period. Even though the object was a public official who is not a general right holder, the defendant did not have a face to ordinary people, the fact that there was no face to ordinary people, that the time of personnel management did not keep for the election, that the defendant's act was distributed with the mark of Hanra Party and the name containing the indication of the district party, and that there was no violation of the rules of evidence, or that there was no violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the rules of evidence as to ordinary, ordinary, ordinary, social or social acts or violation of the rules of evidence, and that there was no violation of the rules of evidence.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

2. As to the publication of false facts

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the non-indicted 1 candidate belonging to the Newcheon Democratic Party was not able to make a final return of global income tax base and pay global income tax accordingly on the basis of the relationship between the non-indicted 1 candidate belonging to the Newcheon Democratic Party and his labor income from 1997 to 199, and the non-indicted 1 candidate did not have any other income constituting global income. Although the defendant made such a speech at the intention that the non-indicted 1 candidate would not have made a comprehensive payment of income tax in 198 and 1999, unless the non-indicted 1 candidate was specified as global income tax, it cannot be deemed as false unless the non-indicted 1 candidate's tax was specified as global income tax, and the defendant was aware of the fact that the non-indicted 2, an election campaign manager of the City Election Commission paid his labor income tax through materials taken by the City Election Commission, even if he did not pay his comprehensive income tax, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts finding and non-indicted 20 or the record.

The ground of appeal disputing this issue is rejected.

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

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)