Defendant

Kim Yong-chul

Public-service advocates final leather (Korean)

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be one day.

On January 7, 2009, the Defendant applied for the registration of Nonindicted 2 as the representative of the petitioners for recall voting from Nonindicted 2 in the previous Jeju City Mayor, and received a list of petitioners for recall from the election commission of the previous City/Do.

No one shall engage in activities to request signatures by means of printed materials, facilities, or other methods, except where the representative, etc. of persons requesting summons presents a list of persons requesting summons or verbal explanation of the purport or reason for recall voting.

1. On February 14, 2009, from around 14:00 to 17:00, the Defendant distributed approximately one hundred and forty (140) copies of the list of the candidates for recall, in which the grounds for the request for recall of recall are stated, to the unspecified number of people in the vicinity of Samcheon-dong, Samcheon-gu, Samcheon-gu, Samcheon-gu, Jeoncheon-gu, Jeoncheon-si, Seoul

2. On February 15, 2009, from around 13:30 to 17:00, the Defendant distributed approximately KRW 230 copies of the signature at the entrance of the Gansan-gun, Masan-gun, Masan-gun, which was located in the back of the former North Korea, to the visitors in the above manner, and carried out activities for requesting signatures.

3. On February 17, 2009, from around 15:00 to 17:00, the Defendant: (a) filed an application for North Korean body located in the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area; and (b) issued to its employees a signature book of approximately 207 copies in the instant manner; and (c) carried out the activities of requesting signatures by delivering the signature book of approximately 2

4. On February 21, 2009, the Defendant distributed approximately 47 copies of the signature to unspecified people at the place, such as the Jeonju Zak-gu and Jeonju Zak-dong, Pungnam-dong, Pungnam-dong, and Jeonju Zak-gu, Pungjin-dong, and Jeonju Zak-dong bus terminal, etc. in a manner as above, and carried out the activities of requesting signatures.

5. From February 23, 2009 to February 25, 2009, the Defendant distributed approximately KRW 1,500 copies of signature to the employees of the Jeonbuk-do Office and the Do Council, in the manner described above, to make a request for signature.

6. On February 25, 2009, the Defendant carried out a request for signature by means of mail to Nonindicted 3, who resides in the Nanju post office located in the Nanju-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Busan-si, Jeonju-si, by means of sending the above signature to Nonindicted 3, who is residing in the Nansan-dong, Pung

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the defendant's prosecution;

1. Statement on Nonindicted 4’s statement

1. Each written confirmation issued by Nonindicted 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

1. A written accusation;

1. A photograph of the distribution paper of the signature of the applicant for the resident recall voting;

1. The discharge pipe of the river basin of the Jeonju City (2. 14. 14.);

1. The head of a place where it is distributed via Maternal Maternal Maternal Materna;

1. Photographs of the joint signature (2. 20. 20. 20. 20) between the applicants;

1. Scenicnam-dong Gaoon photo (2.21. 21.);

1. Muvibration and vibration animal source photo (2. 21. 21.);

1. The business of distributing photographs of gold-dong bus terminals and high-speed bus terminals (2. 21.21.);

1. Photographs of the signatures between the civil petition service centers and the administrative support center in the former North Korean Dos (2. 23.);

1. Details of the collection of a list of petitioners for recall voting;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 32(1), 10(4), and 10(4) of the Recall of Elected Officials Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the issuance, distribution, etc. of this case can not be punished as a type of presentation, which is a request for signature under the above Act.

First of all, the decision of the Constitutional Court on the case of confirming the unconstitutionality of Article 1 of the Recall of Elected Officials Act is as follows (the following parts are abstract).

A request for a recall election is required to be signed by residents at a certain number of times, so it is difficult to view that the request for a recall election is necessarily required to be made, or that it falls under a campaign for recall voting, even if there is a request for a recall election, and it is not known in advance whether the request for a recall election was made after meeting the requirements for the request for a recall election, so there is no need to guarantee the public official who is subject to recall from the stage before the request for a recall election was made, and if such request is allowed, the situation of administrative confession increases unnecessary, the competent election commission provides the person subject to recall voting with an opportunity to vindicate (Article 14 of the Act), after the request for a recall election was made, (Articles 17 and 18 of the Act), and it is possible to oppose the person subject to recall (Article 18 of the Act), and as a whole, the entire opportunity for a recall election is guaranteed, it cannot be deemed that the petitioner’s right to participate in a recall election against this excessive prohibition principle (see Constitutional Court Order 2007Hun-Ma843, Mar. 26, 200

In other words, in light of the above decision, the request for signature of the request for a recall election is not a campaign for a recall election, but does not guarantee the public official who is subject to the recall, but the opportunity to vindicate the person subject to the recall election after the request for a recall election, and the opportunity to oppose the person subject to the recall after the issuance of the recall election. From this perspective, the activities of the request for signature of the recall election have no choice but to be interpreted as more restrictive than the campaign for the recall election, and its scope should be limited to the minimum necessary under the above law. Thus, it is deemed that the act of the request for signature by means other than presenting the list of the persons subject to recall, or explaining the purpose or reasons for the voluntary recall election under the above law

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is due to the misapprehension of legal principles and is not accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Justices Kim Jong-tae