Requirements for the application of Article 60-3 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act, which permits preliminary election campaigns;

Articles 59 and 60-3(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Dong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No1981 Delivered on December 20, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 59 of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "election campaigns may be carried out only from the day after the deadline for the registration of candidates to the day immediately before the election day: Provided, That this shall not apply to any of the following cases: Provided, That in principle, all election campaigns shall be prohibited before the deadline for the registration of candidates; however, in cases falling under the proviso to the same Article, advance election campaigns may be exceptionally permitted; and where matters listed in the proviso to the same Article are subject to exceptional circumstances, one of the exceptional reasons "where preliminary candidates, etc. carry out an election campaign pursuant to the provisions of Article 60-3 (1) and (2) (Article 60-3 (1) 2 of the Act (Article 60-3 (1) of the Act)," and the main sentence of Article 60-3 (2) of the Act provides that "an act in direct appeal for support by a preliminary candidate, etc., carrying his/her name, photograph, telephone number, academic background (referring to the academic background completed in a foreign educational course equivalent thereto), career), career, and other matters necessary for publicity."

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant registered as the preliminary candidate for the City interest market of the 4th national Dong-si local election did not constitute an election campaign in which eight preliminary candidates as provided in Article 60-3 (1) 2 of the Act are allowed to become a candidate for the Si interest market without finding a restaurant, including the electorate, prior to the commencement of the election campaign period, and without delivering the name cards for public relations. The court below held that the decision of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles and records, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Public Official Election Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)