2011Do11691 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. 정■■

Residence

2. Kim America

Housing Sung-nam City

Prosecutor (In respect of Defendants)

Omission

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3717 Decided June 9, 2011

Seoul High Court Decision 2011No1558 Decided August 25, 2011

July 12, 2012

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 82-4(1) of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012; hereinafter “Act”) provides for “a person entitled to conduct an election campaign may conduct an election campaign by any of the following means through an information and communications network under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. during the period for the election campaign” in subparagraph 1 of the same Article, which provides for “a person who is entitled to conduct an election campaign by posting information for an election campaign on the Internet homepage or its bulletin board or toilet room, etc.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 250 or the main sentence of Article 251) of the Act on the ground that a person violates Article 25(2)5 of the Act on the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 201Do3868, Mar. 6, 2017).

In light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that the defendants' act of sending each of the report materials of this case by e-mail or posting them on the tables constitutes an election campaign method permitted under Article 82-4 (1) 1 of the Act, and it cannot be punished under Articles 93 (1) and 255 (2) 5 of the Act, which are provisions prohibiting and punishing distribution of documents, etc. by unlawful means, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 93 (1) of the Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision cited by a prosecutor as the ground of appeal is not appropriate to be invoked in this case.

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

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Park Poe-young