The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant is a public official as a teacher of a high school affiliated with the college of education, a national university.

피고인은 공무원으로서 선거운동을 할 수 없음에도 불구하고, 2016. 4. 5. 장소 불상지에서 C에 「(D 뉴스보도) E F정당 의원이 개소식에서 “G 그만뒀지만 친한 공무원 수두룩 F정당 후보 당선시켜 주면 전관예우 발휘해 용인에 확실한 예산 보내 주겠다”」와 「‘H’이라는 제목 아래에 ‘이건 뭐 아무리 국민 여러분들이 맨날 호갱 노릇을 한다지만’」이라는 내용의 글을 게재한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2016. 4. 9.까지 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 모두 6회에 걸쳐 선거운동을 하였다.

2. The Defendant’s act of changing the gist of the Defendant’s lawsuit constitutes “a simple opinion or expression of intent on election” under the proviso of Article 58(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act and does not constitute an “election campaign” as defined by the main text of the same paragraph.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal principles and the main text of Article 58(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials stipulate “an act to be elected or not to be elected” as “an act to be elected or not to be elected,” and examples of several acts that are not considered as an election campaign under each subparagraph of the proviso.

In this regard, the Supreme Court presented the following specific criteria for the meaning and scope of election campaigns prohibited under the Public Official Election Act in light of the freedom, process and opportunity of election campaigns, the necessity of guaranteeing the political persons' ordinary political activities, the principle of strict interpretation of penal laws derived from the principle of no punishment without law, the position of election campaigns in the whole system of public official election law and other individual prohibition regulations.

In other words, the term "election campaign" is objectively recognized for the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election.