2006No937 A. Violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

B. Violation of the State Public Officials Act

(c) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

1. A. b. ○○○ or a teacher (the former chairperson before the assistance in the former school);

Gangwon-gu Residential Iron-gu

2. A. Do Governor, ○○ and a teacher (the chief vice-chairperson before the full-time school).

Permanent Residence Eup;

3. A. 2. U.S. ○○ and teachers (the head of the Seoul Branch Office before the Jeon school).

Mayang-gu in Manyang-gu

4. A. Na. ○○ or a teacher (the vice-chairperson before the full-time school).

Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

5. (a) . (b) ○○ or a teacher (the chief of the lecture division before the full-time assistant school).

Residential Chuncheon Seocheon-si

Defendants and Prosecutor

○ Kim

○○○ (For the Defendants)

1. Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gohap1055 Delivered on November 11, 2004

2. Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004Gohap99 Decided January 20, 2005

Seoul High Court Decision 2004No3101, 2005Do387 (Joint) Decided June 14, 2005

A person shall be appointed.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4513 Delivered on May 12, 2006

August 8, 2006

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance (the part on the violation of the Election of Public Officials Act and the Prevention of Election Illegal Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act) shall be reversed.

Defendant ○○○ shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00, KRW 000, KRW 1,000, KRW 1,000, and KRW 00, and KRW 800, and KRW 00, and KRW 200, Defendant ○○ shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,00, and KRW 700, and KRW 00, respectively, for a crime set forth in Article 2’s judgment.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

Two days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse in which each of the above fines on Defendant 1 ○○ and ○○○.

To order the Defendants to pay the amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Scope of a party member’s trial on Defendant ○○;

The judgment of the court below is guilty of some of the facts charged in this case against the defendant Lee ○-○, and the violation of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter "Public Official Election Act"), the violation of the State Public Officials Act and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the above defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000 for the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act, and a fine of KRW 300,000 for the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the rest of the violation of the Public Official Election Act shall be acquitted.

Therefore, both the above defendant and prosecutor appealed against the second judgment on the ground of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the appellate court, prior to remanding, rejected both the above defendant and prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, and accepted only the above defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and sentenced the above defendant to a fine of KRW 70,000 and a fine of KRW 200,000 for the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act against the above defendant.

However, the prosecutor only filed an appeal against the judgment of the party before remanding the above case on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor's appeal and reversed and remanded the above defendant's violation of the Public Official Election Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act to the above defendant on the grounds that there were errors in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the part which was acquitted among the above facts charged, so the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is reasonable to view that the prosecutor's summary of the grounds for appeal (1) mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (A) related to the representative meeting on February 23, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "representative meeting of this case") ① was already specified or could have been specified as a candidate for the democratic labor party in relation to the election for the 17th National Assembly member at the time of the instant representative meeting. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts, which determined that the above resolution of the representative meeting did not constitute an election campaign on the ground that the candidate was not specified at the time of the resolution of the said representative meeting.

② At the time of the resolution of the Representative Assembly of this case, the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “former Teachers’ Union”) passed a resolution to support the Democratic Labor Party inside or in an irregular manner. However, since the resolution was not made and was not made public, the Defendants, the officers of the former Teachers’ Union, were to conduct an election campaign supporting the Democratic Labor Party through the instant Congress, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendants, the officers of the former Teachers’ Union, were to conduct an election campaign supporting the Democratic Labor Party to 250 representatives present at the relevant place

(B) On March 23, 2004, distribution and notice of the Assembly Declaration (hereinafter “instant Declaration”)

① The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s order to support the Democratic Labor Party in the 17th National Assembly election was publicly announced, and the preceding Article’s policy was supported by the Democratic Labor Party, but did not externally announce it. The circumstances leading up to the preparation and distribution of the instant text, the contents of the instant text, the purport of the instant text, and the purport of the text of the Assembly and Demonstration is to stipulate both the large party and the present political party as a corruption group and to support the Democratic Labor Party, which is an inventive party. In light of all other circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the text of the Assembly and Demonstration contains the content of supporting the Democratic Labor Party, which is an open political party, the government, and the 3th opposition party, and it is reasonable to view that the text of the Assembly and Demonstration contains the content of supporting the Democratic Labor Party, and at least, it should be deemed that the contents of the Assembly and Demonstration were sufficiently delivered to the teachers belonging to the previous school, but it does not contain any mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against the contents of supporting the Democratic Labor Party.

② With respect to the distribution and notice of the instant text, the prosecutor sought the application of the prohibition of election campaign by public officials under the Public Official Election Act, violation of the sign and seal prohibition provision, and violation of the prohibition of political campaign under the State Public Officials Act. The lower court erred by failing to exhaust its decision. (2) The allegation of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

A public official has a duty of political neutrality, in particular, a public official's act of carrying out an election campaign, such as supporting or opposing a specific political party or political force, is strictly prohibited in the election, and the Defendants committed a political collective action, excluding a public official and teacher, by making a resolution or declaration supporting or opposing a specific political party or political force, and by doing a collective action outside the public service, etc.; the period, motive, method, and consequence of the instant crime; the Defendants are in the core position within the previous school; the Defendants play a leading role in the instant crime; and in full consideration of all other circumstances, each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is unreasonable.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (A) concerning the distribution and notice of the instant report

① The distribution and posting of the text of the Assembly and Demonstration at issue constituted a declaration of opposing the President’s impeachment case, which occurred on March 12, 2004 as a whole. The expression at issue is merely abstract criticism of the overall behavior of political power at the time, and simple statement of opinion or expression of opinion on election, and even if it does not constitute an election campaign for a specific party or candidate, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

② The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s distribution and notice is merely merely an expression of the position of impeachment prosecution case at the time, but does not constitute political activity prohibited by the State Public Officials Act, and even if it constitutes a political activity, it constitutes justifiable act that does not go against the social norms and thus, the illegality is dismissed. Thus, the above act is a public official for a purpose contrary to the public interest and good faith.

Although it cannot be seen as collective action, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine or erroneous determination of facts.

③ In the case of Defendant U2○, it is unreasonable to impose liability as a co-principal for all the results of the above press conference even if the Defendants did not attend the press conference of this case. In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or erroneous determination of facts.

(B) On March 27, 2004, concerning the preparation and posting of Defendant 1’s original ○○○’s letter (hereinafter “instant letter”).

The lower court determined that Defendant 1’s act was an expression of intent to support the Democratic Labor Party, even though it was merely a purpose to deliver and inform the members of the policy on the Democratic Labor Group in the position of the chairperson as an organization under the control of the National Labor Management Group, and does not aim at supporting the Democratic Labor Party, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The Defendants’ act in this case goes against the public interest purpose, or is not an act for a group of public officials or an individual’s desire to commit the crime in this case. The background, method, and result of the crime in this case are likely to lead to a harsh result that the Defendants are sentenced to a fine of one million won or more due to the violation of the Public Official Election Act, which would lead to a harsh result that the Defendants are forced to be retired from office as a public official, the Defendants have faithfully engaged in their school life during that period, and other circumstances are too unreasonable in light of all the circumstances.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Article 58 (1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "the term "election campaign" in this Act refers to an act to be elected or to be elected or not to be elected," and "whether or not a candidate can be specified" is the requirement for election campaign by defining the concept of "election campaign" by using the criteria of "election". Therefore, the concept of election campaign is premised on that the election campaign must be an act for the election or defeat of a candidate who can be specified "specific or at least". In addition, the act aimed at obtaining votes from a specific political party refers to an act aimed at the election of a candidate for a local constituency recommended by the relevant political party, but even in this case, a statement that supports a specific political party can satisfy the concept of election campaign, but it is necessary to specify a candidate who intends to be elected through a speech that supports a specific political party (the Constitutional Court Decision 204 May 5, 2004).

14. (2) According to the contents of press reports among the evidence and reference materials submitted by the prosecutor on December 13, 2004 at the court below's lawfully adopted and examined. At the time of the 17th election of National Assembly members, a candidate to be withdrawn under the jurisdiction of the Democratic Labor Party was already specified in the case of a part of the constituency (as for the election of the 17th National Assembly members, the 17th election of the 17th election of the 17th National Assembly members, and (as for the 3th election of the 4th National Assembly members, the 5th election of the 1st election of the 17th National Assembly members was determined by the court below by taking into account the following facts: the 4th election of the 1st National Assembly members, the 5th election of the 1st National Assembly members at the time of the 4th election of the 5th National Assembly members at the time of the 2004 election of the 4th National Assembly members at the time of the 1st election of the 3th election of the 5th National Assembly members.

15 In the process of reporting on the 15th presidential policy and the 15th presidential committee's project plan for countermeasures against the 4th and 15th presidential committee, and discussions on the contents thereof among the representatives, it is inappropriate for the 4th and 15 senior group to generally follow the 15th presidential political policy, but to publicly announce a resolution to support a specific political party by the 15 senior group, and the opinions were arranged in the direction that it is desirable to make a resolution to the extent that the 15 senior group is desirable to realize the 5th presidential political, and it is difficult to recognize that the 4th and 15 senior group's resolution was made to support the 15th presidential committee, and there is no other evidence to support the 15th presidential committee's resolution, and therefore, the prosecutor's allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the premise that the Defendants made a resolution to support the 15th democratic labor party in the 19th representative meeting of this case is rejected.

B. Article 60(1) of the Public Official Election Act prohibits active and planned acts for the purpose of promoting election or defeat in the election of a specific candidate, i.e., election campaign by a public official, etc. (i., election or favor for a certain candidate). Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act prohibits acts such as distributing documents containing the contents of support, recommendation, or opposition to the election. Article 65(2)1 of the State Public Officials Act prohibits acts to encourage public officials to vote or not to vote for a specific political party or candidate in an election. Article 60(2)1 of the Public Officials Act prohibits not only for the reason that an actor is not a public official, but also for a specific political party or candidate that is prohibited under the above provision, but also for the purpose of promoting democracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2000 Decided June 1, 2007).

In light of the above facts, such as the “Sari Party”, “Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari-Sari]”,”,

Therefore, we accept the defendants' assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to this part.

v. n.

(3) Each court below's determination on whether to oppose an open party and to include the contents of support for democratic labour parties (A)

Each court below determined that the Defendants’ major motive and purpose of the Assembly and Demonstration was to oppose the resolution of the impeachment prosecution against the President, and criticism against the House Party and the Government was merely secondary contents. Even if the contents of the Assembly and Demonstration were to be seen as opposing the directly open party, it was difficult to view it as opposing the direct open party even if the contents of the Assembly and Demonstration were to exist. formally, the declaration of support by the Democratic Labor Party was not referred to as the direct democratic labor party as the political party eligible for support in the Assembly and Demonstration Committee’s criticism that there was a possibility of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and “the progress and remuneration” was a relative concept, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants were not guilty of the act of this case for the purpose of democratic labor in light of the premise that it was under the premise that it was under the premise that it was under the premise that it was under the premise that it was under the premise that it was under the premise that it was under the premise that the act of the Assembly and Demonstration and Demonstration was under a different concept.

(B) The judgment of this Court

However, each of the above judgments by the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted at the lower court: ① Former school is an organization affiliated with the 5th executive officer of the Democratic Republic of Korea, affiliated with the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 4th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 4th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 1989, and the former school assistant chairperson is a representative of the 5th executive officer of the 1st executive officer of the 4th executive officer of the 4th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 5th executive officer of the 4th executive officer’s political party, and the former school assistant chairperson overlaps with the former member of the 1st executive officer of the 5th executive officer’s political party by holding the 1st executive officer of the 1st executive officer’s 4th executive officer’s political party election.

On February 23, 2004, at the regular conference of representatives, which is the highest decision-making body for the full-time mutual assistance, Defendant 0 reported the above "Guidelines 4 and 15," etc. The representative of the Democratic Labor General Chairperson, Kim Jong-Un, and the Democratic Labor Party shall also participate in the above competitions, and the representative of the right-making political party shall be demoted to the effect that "the realization of non-obviousness politics" is "the realization of non-obviousness politics" at the same place, and at the above competition, the resolution was adopted to the effect that "the liquidation of corruption will be done in front of the non-obviousness politics for the realization of the 4 and 15 total workers' political power" was widely known to the general public on the Internet homepage or the press of the Democratic Labor General and the full-time mutual assistance group, and as a result, it is difficult for the Central Labor Committee to adopt the above "the total number of the political party's measures to cope with the 4th election campaign" on March 10, 2004.

12. 국회에서 대통령에 대한 탄핵소추안이 가결되자, 2004. 3. 16. 경 급히 소집된 전교조 비상중앙집행위원회에서 피고인 원○○ 등은 이 사건 시국선언을 실시하기로 결정하였고, 이에 따라 전교조 본부는 “ 탄핵을 주도한 야당은 물론 또 다른 보수정치집단인 여당 및 정부 등 기존 정치세력을 반대하고, 진보적 개혁정치세력을 지지한다 ” 는 내용의 시국선언문을 작성하여 전국 16개의 지부에 송부하였으며, 각 지부장들은 같은 해3. 16. 경부터 같은 달 26. 경 사이에 위 시국선언문에 전국에 걸쳐 약 2만여 명에 이르는 교사들의 서명을 받아 본부로 송부하였고, 전교조 본부와 일부 지부에서는 기자회견을 열어 위 시국선언문과 같은 취지의 기자회견문을 낭독하고 이를 보도자료로 배부하였으며, 인터넷 홈페이지에도 게시한 사실, ⑦ 이 사건 시국선언문 앞부분은, 탄핵을 주도한 거대야당 ( 당시의 상황에 비추어 한나라당이나 자민련을 지칭하는 것임을 쉽게 알 수 있고, 다만 명시적으로는 당명을 거론하지는 아니하였다 ) 을 부패 수구집단으로 지칭하면서 부패, 무능, 반개혁적 집단으로 질타하는 내용이고, 가운데 부분은 “ 그러나 , 거대야당의 헌정질서 유린과 함께 우리는 집권여당과 정부 또한 이번 사태에 깊이 연루되어 있음을 주목한다. 액수의 차이는 있을지언정 집권여당 역시 불법 정치자금 등 부패정치의 잘못된 관행으로부터 결코 자유롭지 않으며, 그것이 이번 사태에 하나의 원인을 제공했음을 지적하지 않을 수 없다. < 중략 > 그런데도 이에 대한 반성과 성찰 없이 탄핵정국을 국회의원 선거와 연계시켜 정치적으로 이용하려는 시도는, 국민에 대한 또 다른 기만의 시작이다. 우리는, 부패 수구집단의 반민주적 정략놀음에 분노하는 국민들의 열망을 이용하여 또 다른 보수정치를 탄생시키려는 어떠한 시도에 대해서도 반대한다. 국민들이 진심으로 고대하는 것은 또 다른 보수정치의 등장이 아니라 부패수구세력의 역사적 퇴출이요, 진정 진보적이고 개혁적인 정치세력으로의 ' 정치판 판갈 이 ’ 이다 ” 라는 내용으로서, 야당뿐만 아니라 여당 또한 부패정치로부터 자유로울 수 없는 보수정치집단임을 지적 · 비난하고 탄핵으로 야기된 거대야당에 대한 국민들의 거부감을 4 · 15 총선에서 집권여당의 득표 전략으로 이용하지 말 것을 경고하면서, 야당뿐만 아니라 여당도 결국 동일한 부패 보수정치집단으로 국민들이 진심으로 고대하는 진보개혁정치를 펴 나갈 수 있는 세력이 아니므로 진보적이고 개혁적인 정치세력으로의' 정치판 판갈이 ’ 가 필요하다고 주장하는 내용이며, 뒷부분은 “ 수구 부패집단의 당리당 략으로 오염된 국회를 국민의 진정한 대변자로 채우는 것은 국민의 권리이다. 돌아오는 국회의원 선거는 부패한 보수정치의 판을 갈아엎을 소중한 기회이다. < 중략 > 부패수구집단은 국회를 사리사욕과 당리당략의 수단으로 전락시켰지만, 다가오는 국회의원 총선에서 우리는 국회를 국민의 꿈과 희망을 꽃 피울 진보적 개혁정치의 무대로 탈바 꿈시킬 것이다 ” 라는 내용으로서, 4 · 15 총선은 부패한 보수정치의 판을 갈아엎을 소중한 기회이므로 4 · 15 총선에서 진보적 개혁정치세력을 국회에 진출시키겠다고 다짐하는 내용인 사실, ⑧ 또한, 전교조 홈페이지에는, 2004. 3. 27. 피고인 원○○이 전교조 위원장 개인 서신의 형식으로 작성한 “ 전교조는 전국대의원대회를 통하여 노동자 정치세력화를 위해 진보정치 실현에 앞장설 것을 결의하고 이번 4 · 15총선에 적극 대응하기로 하였다. 민주노총에 가입된 전교조의 정치 방침은 민주노총의 정치 방침인 민주노동당을 통해 노동자의 정치세력화를 실천하는 것 ” 이라는 요지의 문서가 게시되었고 , 2004. 3. 31. 경에는 “ 4월 15일 판갈아 주세요. 민주노총에서는 땀 흘려 일하는 사람들을 위하여 국회의원이 되고자 후보로 나선 동지들을 위하여 정치기금을 모으고 있습니다 ” 라는 글이 게시되기도 한 사실, ⑨ 한편, 민주노동당이 스스로를 ' 노동자, 농민, 서민 등 소외계층을 대변할 수 있는 깨끗하고 진보적인 개혁정치세력 ' 으로 자처해 온 것은 일반인들 사이에서 이미 널리 알려진 사실을 인정할 수 있다 .

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the former executives and the heads of the branch offices, who are members of the former Telecommunication Central Committee, including the Defendants, have passed a resolution to support the democratic labor party in accordance with the 4th and 15th National Assembly's "Policies 4 and 15th National Assembly's Guidelines to actively support the Democratic Labor Party" in comparison with the above 15th National Assembly's "The 4 and 15th National Assembly's 15th National Assembly's 1999's 204's 204's 4 and 15th National Assembly's 5th National Assembly's 5th National Assembly's 204's 5th National Assembly's 5th National Assembly's 200's 1th National Assembly's 200's 5th National Assembly's 200's 5th National Assembly's 200's 10th National Assembly's 20th National Assembly's 30th Assembly's 20th Assembly's 20th National Assembly's 1.

In addition, in light of the planning and promotion of the assembly and demonstration of this case, the purpose and background of the assembly and demonstration of this case, and specific contents of expression, etc., the Defendants’ series of actions related to the assembly and demonstration of this case against the existing political forces, such as Hanraa, the open party to Korea, etc., and as an alternative force, are an active and planned act to the extent that the intent to support the democratic labor party can be objectively recognized, and thus, constitutes an act of supporting or opposing a specific political party or candidate prohibited by the Assembly and Demonstration Act or the

Nevertheless, on the ground that it is difficult to view the Defendants’ series of acts related to the question of this case to have been conducted for the purpose of opposing our open party and supporting the democratic labor party, there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to election campaign under Article 255 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act or political campaign under Article 65 (2) 1 of the State Public Officials Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor’s allegation of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to this point is with merit.

(4) As to whether a collective action prohibited under Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act constitutes a group action prohibited under the State Public Officials Act, the term "labor movement" should be interpreted to mean three fundamental rights, namely, the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action, as a concept of the Constitution and labor law, in light of the relationship with the Constitution and the State Public Officials Act and the Constitution guarantee the freedom of assembly and association, and the constitutional restriction provisions on public officials only with respect to the right to work. The limited right to organize refers to the right of subordinate workers to form and join, join, and act for, a labor union organized by subordinate workers for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions, and the right to organize refers to all collective action committed by public officials for any activity other than public duties. It does not refer to any collective action conducted by public officials for any activity other than public duties. It should also be interpreted to mean that the duty to maintain public interests is limited to 190,000 won in consideration of the principle of the Constitution, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty under the State Public Officials Act, and duty in good faith.

In addition, Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions (hereinafter referred to as "School Teachers' Unions Act")

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act, the Act was enacted to determine matters concerning the establishment of teachers' trade unions under the proviso of Article 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and to prescribe special cases concerning the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act applicable to teachers. The Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment is a legitimate trade union. However, considering the harmony with the right of students to take lessons as public educational officials and the special characteristics of public officials, the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment only stipulates that the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers shall not conduct any industrial action that obstructs their normal operation (Article 8 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers). Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act, which provides that public officials shall not engage in any collective action, needs to be mitigated and interpreted in consideration of the legislative intent of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers in the former school, and it is reasonable to deem that the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations of Workers is not a collective action under Article 66 of the State Public Officials

On the other hand, students who are able to be able to be able to have an independent and independent political judgment ability yet to be able to accommodate other people's political assertions, etc. without standing. In particular, in cases where a teacher in charge of personal guidance expresses his or her position supporting or opposing a specific political party, it is not only a direct opinion against the students, but also an indirect case where a teacher gives a political opinion in the name of a former school group in the name of a teacher's organization. Accordingly, the Teachers' Labor Unions Act stipulates that the teacher's labor union shall not engage in any political activity (Article 3 of the Teachers' Labor Unions Act).

(B) In light of the purport and interpretation criteria of the above relevant legal provisions, a series of acts related to the preparation, distribution, and posting of the Defendants’ instant reports fall under political activities prohibited under Article 3 of the Teachers’ Union Act by itself, and such acts are deemed collective acts that affect the duty of care in good faith for purposes contrary to the public interest and constitute collective acts prohibited by the State Public Officials Act, and there is no room to regard them as justifiable acts not contrary to the social rules. (c) Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to this part is rejected.

(6) As to the recognition of a joint principal offender by Defendant U20 (A) at least two persons are not required under the law, and there is a combination of two or more persons' intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was a person who did not participate in the conduct, it is held criminal liability as a joint principal offender for other persons' conduct. Such conspiracy may be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules even if there was no direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 2004). The evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below was prepared for signature from each of the instant branch offices on March 24, 2004, and then distributed the signature to each of the instant branch offices to each of the instant parties.

3. On March 23, 200, the Assembly and Demonstration was prepared and implemented in a systematic, planned manner through the process of discussion and resolution in accordance with the internal procedures in the previous school, such as gathering reporters from the previous school office and publishing, distributing, and posting them on the Internet homepage of the previous school. Defendant U.S., the Seoul branch office of the previous school, directly and indirectly participated in the process of discussions, preparation, and execution as to the above series of acts, and participating in the decision of its intention. Thus, the above Defendant cannot be exempt from criminal liability as a co-principal in relation to the above acts, regardless of whether the above Defendant directly participated in the field of announcement to the press company. (c) Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to this part is not accepted.

(7) As to the prosecutor’s assertion of omission of judgment

With respect to the distribution and notice of the Assembly report of this case, the public prosecutor tried to conduct an election campaign supporting the "PPP" as a public official in violation of the prohibition provision on election campaign as a public official under the Public Official Election Act; ② the Defendants indicted the Defendants of political activities by soliciting them to vote in order to support the "PPPP" in violation of the prohibition provision on election campaign under the State Public Officials Election Act; and (b) the Defendants did not prosecute each of the above facts charged under the premise that the court below had already supported the Democratic Labor Party. In relation to the distribution and notice of the Assembly Declaration of this case, the public prosecutor did not prosecute the Defendants of this part of the above facts on the premise that the Defendants had already supported the Democratic Labor Party. In relation to the distribution and notice of the Assembly Declaration of this case, the public prosecutor did not prosecute the Defendants against the acts of political activities by soliciting them not to vote against the "PPPP" and "PPPPP".

As to the fact that a public prosecutor violated the provisions prohibiting signatures and seals under the Public Official Election Act by making a signature campaign and at the same time took a political campaign by attempting to carry out a signature campaign under the State Public Officials Act, it is unnecessary to determine this part of the public prosecutor’s withdrawal of the public prosecution on the third public trial date and the first public trial prior to the remand of the case.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion that there is a omission of judgment as to each of the above parts is rejected.

다. 피고인 원ㅇㅇ의 이 사건 위원장 서신 작성 · 게시에 관하여

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, i.e., Defendant ○○ at the time of the instant case, as a person in the position of the chairman of the Jeon school and has significant influence on the Jeon school and others; the position of the Jeon school group and Jeon school group related to the total 4.15 p.m. as seen earlier; the circumstance that the said Defendant prepared and posted the letter of the chairman of the instant case; the time of posting the letter of the chairman of the instant case; the time of posting the letter of correspondence; the political policy of Jeon school group affiliated with the Democratic Labor Group is the opportunity to practice the labor power of the workers through the Democratic Labor Party, which is the political policy of the Labor Group; the “It is clearly defective to support the labor union and candidates to represent the understanding and demand of the labor union; and it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s opinion that it is desirable to post the said letter of desire and desire of education through educational labor in the name of the chairman of the instant political party and the contents of the previous election campaign, including the Defendant’s opinion.”

Therefore, we cannot accept the above defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to this part.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal on the ground of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is with merit, and without having to decide on the remaining grounds of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the defendants, each of the crimes of Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 1 of the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second court (the violation of the Election of Public Officials Act and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act) is reversed, and

Criminal facts

The facts constituting the crime acknowledged by this court are as follows (1) as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, and as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of second instance except as stated below (2) and as stated in each corresponding column of the court of second instance, they are quoted as it is in accordance

① Defendant 1. The ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○, in collaboration with the senior executives and the teachers under his control:

A. On March 204, 200, the Ministry of Assembly Administration and Home Affairs announced 10 U.S. government offices and 200 U.S. government offices with the aim of supporting democratic labor. From 000 U.S. government offices and 10 U.S. government offices and 200 U.S. government offices, “The 16th National Assembly shall be an order of history, and the 16th National Assembly shall be consistent with the orders of corruption and prosperity, and the 3th government offices and 4th government offices’ signature and seal for the election of 00 U.S. government offices and 10 U.S. government offices’ signature and seal for 10 U.S. government offices and 20 U.S. government offices’ signature and seal for 30 U.S. government offices and 3 government offices’ signature and seal for 10 U.S. government offices and 200 U.S. government offices’ signature and seal for 200 U.S. government offices’ culture and order.

2. [1. In collusion with the executive officers and affiliated teachers of the senior high school headquarters, including the senior high school chief executive officer, the senior high school chief executive officer, the senior high school chief executive officer:

On March 204, the Declaration of 16th National Assembly is an order of history to liquidate corruption, corruption, and progressive political reform - Deficial politics is a democratic order. The 16th National Assembly is grounded on policy errors, such as corruption and fluority, the passage of the KF FTA and impeachment, and the presidential impeachment, and the unconstitutional order, and the present House and the government are not free from the erroneous practices of corruption and political party, and it is difficult for the people to introduce the market principles. The election of a member of the National Assembly is an opportunity for the public to sign and seal the 16th National Assembly as a public official of the Republic of Korea with the view to the 0th election campaign office in the form of an election campaign site or the election campaign site, and the 16th National Assembly Secretariat to the 20th National Assembly Secretariat of the Republic of Korea with the desire of the public and the 2th National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea National Assembly to the 10th National Assembly Secretariat of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism to the 2th National Assembly.

Summary of Evidence

The summary of the evidence for the crime of this case is identical to the statement in each corresponding column of the lower court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendants

- Violation of the prohibition of public officials' election campaign under paragraph (1) of the holding of each court below: Each comprehensive election is subject to Article 255(1)1 and Article 60(1)4 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act

- The writing distribution and posting by the illegal means under paragraph (1) of the holding of each court below: Each comprehensive election of public officials and the prevention of election fraud, Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Violation of prohibition of collective action by a public official under paragraph (1) of the holding of each original judgment: Articles 84 and 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, collectively;

B. Defendant ○○○, ○○, ○○, and Help○

· Violation of the prohibition of political activities by solicitation for voting under paragraph (1) of the holding of the court below: Articles 84 and 65(2)1 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, comprehensively, each of them constitutes violation of the prohibition of political activities by solicitation for voting.

· Violation of the prohibition of election campaign for public officials under paragraph (2) of the decision of the court below: Articles 255(1)1 and 60(1)4 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

· The publication of a letter by the method of misappropriation under paragraph (2) of the decision of the court below: Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Fraud

· Violation of the prohibition of political activities by the solicitation campaign for voting under paragraph (2) of the holding of the court below: Articles 84 and 65 (2) 1 of the State Public Officials Act

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

A. Defendants

Each judgment of the court below is a violation of the Public Official Election Act and the Prevention of Election Illegal Act under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and each violation of the State Public Officials Act under the same paragraph (the punishment shall be imposed on a public official who commits a violation of the prohibition of election campaign by a public official with the largest punishment)

B. Among the crimes of violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Election Illegal Act under paragraph (2) of the same Article as stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant Won○○○○○ (a punishment imposed on the violation of the Act on Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Election Illegal Act due to a violation of the prohibition of election campaign by a

C. Violation of the Public Official Election Act under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, and violation of the State Public Officials Act (the punishment imposed on the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the Prevention of Election Malpractice Act due to the violation of the prohibition of election campaign by a public official with the largest punishment)

3. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

4. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant original ○○);

Article 37 (Election for Public Officials due to Violation of Prohibition of Election Campaign by Public Officials under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, and Punishment for Violation of the Election Campaign Act due to Violation of Prohibition of Election Campaign by Public Officials under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Punishment for Violation of Election Campaign Act due to Violation of Prohibition of Election Campaign by Public Officials under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below

5. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

6. To include days of pre-trial detention in the calculation of Defendant’s won, ○○○)

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

7. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that all of the Defendants are teachers who guide and educate students and have a duty to prohibit political activities and to maintain political neutrality. In particular, acts of election campaign, such as supporting and opposing a specific political party or political force in an election, are strictly prohibited. However, the Defendants make a declaration that they are imminent in an election to support and oppose a specific political party or political force, and make it public inside and outside the press organization and others, and during that process, they do illegal collective acts contrary to the public interest. The above illegal acts committed by the Defendants are deemed to have a significant impact on the election of the 17th National Assembly members. Unlike other Defendants, Defendant ○○○○○, as the chairman of the 17th National Assembly, is also the chief executive officer and vice-chairman of the 17th National Assembly members; Defendant 2000 has a significant degree of criticism or possibility; Defendant 2 appears to be the chief executive officer and vice-chairman of the 19th National Assembly; Defendant 2000's overall act and the head of the ○○○.

However, the Defendants’ fundamental motive leading to the above acts can be taken into account. The Defendants attempted to observe the legitimate framework, such as not specifying a specific political party in the assembly report through the open conference conference. Defendants did not have any previous conviction, and Defendants should retire from the office of teacher in accordance with Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act in the event they were sentenced to a fine of one million won or more due to the instant case. In particular, Defendant U-○ and the head of the branch office in the previous school group in accordance with the guidelines of the previous school group, among the heads of the branch offices in the previous school group, who were sentenced to a fine of one million won or more, and most of the heads of other City/Do branches in the instant case maintained teachers’ office after having been sentenced to a fine of one million won or more. Thus, the sentence like the order shall be imposed in consideration of the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as well as the above circumstances.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants are all teachers who are state public officials. A public official is in collusion with the former Telecommunication Headquarters executives and teachers belonging to the former Telecommunication Headquarters even though he could not engage in election campaign. On February 23, 2004, the former Telecommunication Executive Board including the Defendants and the executives of the Si/Gun/Gu branch held a Central Executive Committee in order to support the candidates for the Democratic Labor Party in accordance with the 4/15th policy, a superior organization, while the executives of the former Telecommunication Headquarters including the Defendants were present at the Central Committee, and the former Telecommunication Working Group was established on April 15, 200, and delivered to each City/Do branch of the City/Do on February 23, 2004, and the former Telecommunication Project Plan was formulated on February 11, 2004 to 22:0,000, in addition to the Defendants, at the Korea Community Credit Cooperatives Training Center located in Yongsan-si, the former Telecommunication’s 250 representative and the Vice-Chairperson, etc. attending the latter.

15 In accordance with the "Total Election Policy", the "the total response plan for 4 / 15 p.m. taken by the Jeon school Central Execution Committee" was reported, and the representative of the Democratic Labor Party was compelled to realize the inventive politics, and followed up an election campaign to support the Democratic Labor Party, which is a specific political party, by making a resolution to the effect that "the representative of the Democratic Labor Party is going to realize the inventive politics" in order to realize the inventive politics of workers in total 4 / 15 p.m.

2. Determination

As seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to recognize that the Defendants passed a resolution to support a specific political party, which is a specific political party, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of the facts charged is a case without proof of a crime and thus, a not-guilty verdict under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be pronounced. However, inasmuch as the Defendants found guilty of a violation of the State Public Officials Act due to collective action by a public official

Judges Gu-Appellee

Judges Park Jae-young

Judges Jeon Soo-tae