beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (public prosecutor) did not dispute the Defendant’s assertion that “E is a candidate to support” (hereinafter “the instant statement”) at the end of the discussions on TV of this case, and that the instant statement itself is false.
Furthermore, despite the Defendant’s assertion, the main text of “the candidate supported by the E Workers” (hereinafter “the substitute text of this case”) that the Defendant prepared for the instant TV debate is also false.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, in addition to the erroneous judgment that: (a) on the erroneous premise that the main text of the instant substitute part is not false; (b) the Defendant omitted the phrase “worker” in the instant substitute part and made it difficult to view that there was a perception of publishing false facts in making the speech of the instant case.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles of publication of false facts under the Public Official Election Act which applies mutatis mutandis under the Local Education Autonomy Act.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was elected on June 13, 2018 at the 7th national provincial election (hereinafter “instant election”) that was implemented on June 13, 2018 as a candidate for the superintendent of the Office of Education of B.
The Defendant, from June 5, 2018 to June 23:15, 2018, made a statement of the last objection at the TV forum (hereinafter “instant TV forum”) held by a candidate for the Superintendent of the Office of Education of the Korean Broadcasting B, which was held in the D Broadcasting Station C, and stated, “E is the candidate’s honor.” However, in the indictment, the Defendant’s statement of “candidate.” However, it can be confirmed by evidence that the Defendant made a statement of “candidate” (the CD’s screen accompanied by the 211 pages and 215 pages of the evidentiary record).
However, the Defendant did not have received official support from E organizations (E), and against E workers under their control.