beta
Text
All parts of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants are reversed.
The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants: Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (i.e., simple expression of opinion of a public official belongs to the category of freedom of political expression; ii) the duty of prohibition of the State Public Officials Act is not applied only to public officials, and thus the Defendants who are not public officials can not be the co-offender of the act violating the prohibition duty. ③ Defendants as full-time employees of the PTrade Union did not have any fact in the instant case, and are punished as co-principal because it is difficult to recognize functional control in light of their status and role, etc.
Prosecutor: 2. Judgment of this Court
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor maintained ex officio the first facts charged against the Defendants as the primary facts charged and maintained as it is. “Aid and abetting the Defendants in violation of the State Public Officials Act” in the name of the ancillary crime along with the facts charged below, as stated in the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for permission of modification of a bill of amendment to which the term “Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act” is added to the applicable provisions of the Act, and as such, the subject of the judgment is legally changed by this court, due to such subsequent changes in circumstances, the first instance judgment cannot be maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 19, 2012, which concluded that the Defendants’ act of the Assembly and Demonstration against the Defendants’ assertion constitutes “collective act for purposes other than public duties” prohibited under Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act.