beta
Text
Defendant
All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A: misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A did not provide rice to the members of the mountain conference after being provided with rice from Defendant B for himself; Defendant A’s speech is merely merely a new drum or a normal political activity permitted under the Act on the Election of Public Officials, and cannot be inferred to a private road for the purpose of promoting the election from the elector’s point of view, and thus, it cannot be seen as an election campaign.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant A to violate the Public Official Election Act by means of prior election campaign is improper.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the “election district concerned” under the premise of a contribution act cannot be deemed to correspond to the election district stipulated in the current election district list, and the “election district concerned” refers to a geographical district in which a candidate intends to withdraw from an election to be held in the future.
Therefore, this concept of election district is irrelevant to whether the list of the existing election district districts of National Assembly members has lost its validity due to the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no valid constituency as a premise of contribution act according to the decision inconsistent with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court
B) Although Defendant A’s violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of the false facts, the lower court’s determination that acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges can be found for the same reason is unreasonable.
(1) On February 29, 2016, Defendant A expressed in a decent manner a content inconsistent with the objective fact that “CI first opposed to AD (hereinafter “AD”) prior to the first time.” As such, the said speech is a publication of false facts.