[1] The meaning of a prior election campaign prohibited under Article 254 (2) 2 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts

[2] Whether holding an interview or debate by inviting candidates for presidential elections and broadcasting by television constitutes an advance election campaign (negative)

[1] An advance election campaign, which is prohibited under Article 254(2)2 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, means any act necessary or favorable for obtaining or obtaining a vote for the purpose of winning an election of a specific candidate prior to the election campaign period in a specific election, or any act necessary or unfavorable for the purpose of defeating an election of a specific candidate, among all acts necessary and unfavorable for the purpose of defeating an election of a specific candidate, or an active and planned act deviating from the scope of the ordinary ordinary justice.

[2] Since the freedom of a press such as a broadcasting company is guaranteed to report or comment on an election, a broadcasting company's inviting candidates for an election campaign to hold an interview or debate and broadcasting shall be permitted to meet the freedom of the press and the right to know about the people, barring special circumstances such as violation of the relevant laws and regulations or the Broadcasting Act. Article 82 of the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act provides for an interview or debate about the invitation of a press during the election campaign period, it shall not be deemed that the interview or debate about the invitation of a candidate before the election campaign period does not violate Article 254 (2) 2 of the same Act. In this case, each broadcasting company holding an interview or debate may decide on the selection of a candidate for the invitation and the frequency of holding a debate, etc. before the election campaign period, and even if an election is held by only several candidates, it cannot be readily concluded that the interview or debate is unlawful unless it seriously infringes on the fairness of the invitation of a candidate or the right to know.

[1] Article 254 (2) 2 and/or / [2] Articles 82 and 254 (2) 2 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Illegal Election

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 95No14 delivered on November 7, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3927)

Mad Hawal

Korea Broadcasting System and two others

Seoul District Court Order 97Kahap4485 dated August 27, 1997

The petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

The expenses incurred in filing an application shall be borne by the applicant by adding the first and second trials.

With respect to the presidential election conducted on December 8, 1997, the respondent shall not invite four prospective candidates for the 15th presidential election to broadcast discussions or other personal propaganda programs until November 26, 1997, for which the election campaign period begins.

1. Applicant's assertion

(a)the applicant was elected on August 18, 1997 as a candidate for the President of the Democratic National Union;

B. The respondent, as a legal entity operating a television broadcasting station, invited the candidates for the 15th presidential election candidate of each political party, such as the establishment of the new Korea Party to the New Korea, the Kim Jong-dae, and the Free Democratic Union Kim Jong-soo, holds a debate and plays a film thereon.

C. However, Article 82 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act (hereinafter “Public Official Election Act”) which allows limited permission to attract candidates to hold an interview and debate only during the election period.

(2) Article 82 of the Public Official Election Act (referring to an interview or debate inviting a media organization), including television broadcasting stations, radio broadcasting stations, general daily newspapers under the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (hereinafter “press”) may hold and report an interview or debate to identify the platform and policy of a political party to which a candidate belongs or the candidate’s political views, etc., by inviting one or more persons (referring to a person designated by a candidate from among those eligible to engage in an election campaign) with the candidate’s consent during the election campaign period.

B. Omission of paragraphs

section 254(2)2 of the same Act.

Article 254 of the Public Official Election Act (Violation of Article 254 of the Election Campaign Act)

A person who commits an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs prior to an election campaign period shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding six million won:

1. Omitted;

2. A person who conducts or causes another person to conduct an election campaign using a broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, or other publications, 3 through 5;

Omission

The respondent also excluded the applicant from holding a debate about the invitation of candidates for presidential election, thereby infringing the applicant's eligibility for election and the right of equality in election.

D. Therefore, the respondent’s invitation of candidates for the presidential election, excluding the applicant, to play a forum or conduct other personal propaganda shall be prohibited.

2. Determination:

A. The term “pre-election campaign” prohibited under Article 254(2)2 of the Public Official Election Act means any act necessary or favorable to obtain a vote for the purpose of winning an election of a specific candidate prior to the election campaign period in a specific election, or any act necessary or unfavorable for the purpose of winning an election of a specific candidate, among all acts that are needed or unfavorable for the purpose of winning an election of a specific candidate, and an active and planned act deviating from the scope of the ordinary justice that is implemented among ordinary people (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do135, Apr. 12, 196). However, in this case, since there is no evidence to prove that the respondent held a forum, etc. of a specific candidate for the purpose of winning an election or defeat an election of a specific candidate, the holding of a debate about the candidates for the presidential election and broadcasting of the respondent cannot be deemed an unlawful act that conflict with the Public Official Election Act, etc.

B. Meanwhile, since the freedom of a report or comment on an election is guaranteed to a press organization, such as a broadcasting company, etc., by inviting prospective voters to hold an interview or debate, etc. in a broadcasting company shall be permitted to meet the freedom of the press and the right to know about the people, barring special circumstances, such as violation of the relevant laws and regulations or the Broadcasting Act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da14, Nov. 7, 1995). Article 82 of the Public Official Election Act provides for an interview or debate about the invitation of a press organization during the election campaign period, even if the interview or debate about the invitation of a candidate before the election campaign period does not violate Article 254 (2) 2 of the same Act, it shall not be deemed that the interview or debate about the invitation of a candidate before the election campaign period is prohibited. In this case, each broadcasting company holding an interview or debate prior to the election campaign period may determine the selection of a candidate and the number of discussions, etc. in accordance with autonomous judgment criteria, such as the value of news, etc., and it cannot be readily concluded as unlawful.

(1) On May 31, 1995, the reply of the chairman of the Central Election Management Commission and Hanwondo, the construction of the Public Official Election Management Act and the Prevention of Election Illegal Act (196), 282 pages.

It cannot be deemed that it infringes on the eligibility or equality of another candidate who has not been invited to the debate, etc.

C. Ultimately, the instant petition filed by the respondent seeking prohibition against broadcasting the debate, etc. inviting four persons scheduled to run the 15th presidential election candidate, with respect to the respondent, has no vindication of the preserved right, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's application of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the decision of the court below with the same conclusion is just and dismissed as the petitioner's appeal is without merit, and the costs of the application shall be added to the first and second trials and shall be borne by the applicant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)