[1] The meaning of "party-party competition" as stipulated in the Public Official Election Act

[2] The case holding that the process of official election of the local council members of proportional representative members of the local council in a political party, which is conducted through the examination of documents and interview, does not constitute an intra-party competition under Article 250 (3) of the Public Official Election Act

[3] Whether Article 250 (1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act applies to a case where a person fails to meet the requirements of paragraph (3) of this Article (negative)

[4] Whether the purpose, which is a subjective element of Article 250(3) of the Public Official Election Act, is the same as a subjective element of Article 250(1) and (2) of the same Act (negative)

[5] The case holding that it is difficult to acknowledge that the act of expressing the negative facts or opinions on the candidates of competition with respect to the intraparty competition for recommending the candidates of the local council proportional representative members of the proportional representative members of the local council goes beyond the "purpose of preventing the above-party candidates from being elected to the local council members" and the "purpose of preventing the above-party candidates from being elected to the local council members

[1] The term "party-party competition" under the Public Official Election Act means the procedure by which a political party passes an election conducted by giving its right to vote to party members, etc., or by conducting a public opinion poll replacing the party-party competition according to the party constitution, party rules or the written agreement between the candidates for the party-party competition and determining the candidates for the party-party competition.

[2] The case holding that the process of official election of the local council members of proportional representative members of the local council in a political party, which is conducted through the examination of documents and interview, does not constitute an intra-party competition under Article 250 (3) of the Public Official Election Act

[3] Article 250 (1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act applies to the public election of local council members, etc. Paragraph (3) of the same Article is a provision that applies to the public election of local council members, etc., and Paragraph (3) of the same Article is a provision that applies to the public election of local council members, and in light of the fact that the public election of local council members is a method that the candidate who is to participate in the public election of local council members, etc. is to elect within the political party a candidate who is to participate in the public election of local council members, etc., it cannot be viewed as a preliminary provision

[4] Article 250(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the elements of publication of false facts are to be made for the purpose of "the election of public officials to be elected or not to be elected in the public office". Article 250(3) provides that a candidate for the intra-party competition shall publish false facts for "the purpose of becoming a candidate for public office recommended by a political party or not to become a candidate for public office". Thus, the purpose of each of the above provisions is to regulate the election of public officials and the intra-party competition.

[5] The case holding that it is difficult to acknowledge that the act of expressing the negative facts or opinions on the candidates of competition with respect to the primary election for recommending candidates of the local council members of proportional representative members of the proportional representative members of the local council goes beyond the "purpose of preventing the candidates of competition from being elected to the local council members" and it was "the purpose of preventing the candidates of competition from being elected to the local council members"

[1] Article 57-2 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Article 250(3) of the Public Official Election Act / [3] Article 250(1), (2), and (3) of the Public Official Election Act / [4] Article 250(1), (2), and (3) of the Public Official Election Act / [5] Article 250(1), (2), and (3) of the Public Official Election Act

Defendant

Kim Jong-tae

Attorney Park Gi-soo

1. The defendant is innocent.

2. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published;

1. Issues;

The summary of the prosecutor's indictment is that the defendant primarily published the false facts with the intention that the non-party 1 who was listed as the candidate for the intra-party competition (hereinafter "candidate for the intra-party competition") in the (party name omitted) local council members in the (party name omitted), and the non-party 1 published the false facts for the purpose that the non-party 1 cannot be elected as the member of the (party name omitted) council. The defendant and his defense counsel did not conduct the recommendation for proportional representation system for the primary facts, but did not intend to be a candidate for the intra-party election or a candidate for the public office as provided by Article 250 (1) of the Public Official Election Act for the primary facts, and the defendant did not intend to be a candidate for the intra-party election or a candidate for the intra-party election as provided by Article 2

2. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. Main facts charged

The defendant (the name of the political party omitted) entered the 4th regional election of Dong-si local council members of the (the name of the local government omitted), which was implemented on May 31, 2006, with the approval of the candidate for the (the name of the political party omitted) proportional representative members of the (the name of the local government omitted) council, and the election of the candidate for the intra-party candidate for the intra-party candidate who is the chairman of the council for female party members of the Gu Council for the purpose of preventing the election of the intra-party candidate for the intra-party candidate from being elected in the (the name of the political party omitted) the fact that the non-party 1 was suspected of paying the party membership fee for the party members of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted), and the fact that the non-party 2 was found to have omitted the fact that the non-party 1 was the party member of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted) from the (the name of the non-party 4) proportional representative members of the political party.

B. ( whether there was a “party-party competition” for the recommendation of the proportional representative members of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party.

(1) Article 250(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “a person who commits an act provided for in paragraph (2) in connection with the intraparty competition” shall be punished, and Article 250(2) of the same Act provides that “a person who publicly announces false facts with respect to a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) who is unfavorable to the candidate by means of a speech, broadcast, newspaper, communications, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or other means for the purpose of preventing the candidate from being elected” shall be punished. First, this paper examines whether there was an intraparty competition for the recommendation of proportional representative members of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party as indicated in the primary facts charged.

(2) Scope of application of the Public Official Election Act and meaning of intraparty competition

The Public Official Election Act enacted on March 16, 1994 applies to the presidential election, the election of National Assembly members, the election of local council members and the heads of local governments (hereinafter referred to as "election for public office") (Article 2). On August 4, 2005, the provisions related to "the intra-party competition for the recommendation of candidates for political parties (hereinafter referred to as "party competition")" were newly established as "Article 6-2 of the Public Official Election Act." Article 57-2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that, in relation to the implementation of the intra-party competition, "political parties may hold a competition for the recommendation of candidates for public office ( Paragraph (1))," and in cases where political parties conduct the intra-party competition (including public opinion polls replacing those that were conducted by the party's party's party's or the party's competition candidate's candidate according to the party's party's regulations or the written agreement among the candidates for the intra-party competition, any person who is not a candidate for the relevant political party may not be registered as a candidate for the same constituency for the relevant election."

In light of the scope of the above application of the Public Official Election Act and the regulations on the intra-party competition, the term "party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party

(3) The method of recommending the candidates for election of proportional representative members of the Daegu Metropolitan City Council (the name of a local government omitted) Gu Council; and

According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 (S.C. 1), 4 (S.C. 2006), 5 (Public Opinion Nos. 1 and 6 (Public Opinion No. 1 and Defendant’s Public Opinion No. 1) and evidence Nos. 7 (Public Opinion No. 1) as requested by the Defendant’s defense counsel, the following facts may be acknowledged.

(A) On May 31, 2006, the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (the name of a political party omitted) recommended candidates for proportional representative members of the 4th Dong-si Local Election Council (the name of a local government omitted), which was conducted on May 31, 2006 by the examination committee of qualifications for candidates for public office and the examination committee for recommending candidates for public office (hereinafter referred to as the “Examination Committee on Recommendation of Candidates”).

(B) A candidate qualification review committee has mainly examined previous records, taxation, and other ethics as a public official. This is only for those who have passed a qualification review as a preliminary procedure for a candidate for public office.

(C) The examination of the Gongcheon Review Committee consisting of 11 personnel in the party and 6 personnel outside the party, based on the documents submitted by the applicant, was conducted by the first document examination and the second interview through individual inquiries of the official examiners, and each score in these examinations was determined by the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (the name of a party omitted) to be recommended by the applicant.

(D) On March 15, 2006, the Defendant applied for recommendation as a candidate for proportional representative members of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the local government omitted) Gu Council (the name of the local government omitted) in Daegu Metropolitan City City (the name of the political party omitted) on March 24, 2006. Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendant passed the qualification examination of each candidate for public office through the examination of documents on April 25, 2006 and interview on May 8, 2006, respectively, and the Defendant was finally recommended as a candidate for proportional representative members of the Gu Council of Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the local government omitted) (the name of the political party omitted).

(4) Conclusion

In full view of the following circumstances, the examination conducted by the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (the name of the local government omitted) to recommend proportional representative members of the Gu Council (the name of the local government omitted) on the date and time indicated in the primary facts charged cannot be an intra-party competition as stipulated in Article 250(3) of the Public Official Election Act.

(A) The Daegu Metropolitan City Party of Daegu is merely recommending a political party or candidate of the proportional representative members of the Daegu Metropolitan City (Local Government Name omitted) Gu Council by means of document review and interview, and there is no evidence to recognize that there was a public opinion poll replacing the intraparty competition or the intraparty competition.

(B) The purport of Article 250(3) of the Public Official Election Act stipulating that a person who publicly announces false facts in connection with the intra-party competition shall be punished. The purport of such provision is that if false facts are publicly announced, members who have voting or right to participate in the intra-party competition or public opinion poll and many and unspecified unspecified persons may mislead accurate judgments

(C) Although the legislative purpose of Article 250(3) of the Public Official Election Act is to prevent the advance campaign for the election of public officials by holding the intraparty competition or by iceing the intraparty competition, there is no evidence to deem that the Daegu Metropolitan City Party did the advance campaign for the election of public officials by iceing the intraparty competition.

(D) The principle of no punishment without the law prohibits the provision of a crime and a punishment by law in order to protect an individual’s freedom and rights from the arbitrary exercise of the state’s penal authority and the provision of a sexual question must be strictly interpreted, and prohibits the defendant from analogical interpretation with the original meaning of a sexual provision unfavorable to the defendant.

C. Whether the Defendant publicly announced “false facts”

(1) recognised facts

According to each statement of Nonindicted 3 and 4, each statement of the witness applied by the defense counsel, each statement of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 submitted by the prosecutor among the second trial records, each statement of Nonindicted 5 of the witness applied by the prosecutor among the third trial records, each statement of Nonindicted 5 of the witness applied by the prosecutor, 14, 15, and 16 of the examination (each investigation report), and each statement of notice of the website (the statement of a political party omitted) attached to the evidence No. 1 of the examination of additional evidence, the following facts may be acknowledged.

(A) From February 13, 2006 to 18, Nonindicted 4 of the Secretary General of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (hereinafter “Party Name omitted”) conducted a self-inspection into the payment of party membership fees for the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (hereinafter “Party Name omitted”) by asking about whether the party president of the Central Party and Nonindicted 6 of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (hereinafter “Party Name omitted”) employed part-time students and directly paid the party membership fees by telephone to the elected party members.

(B) As a result of the above investigation, Nonindicted 4 stated that “30 of the Daegu Metropolitan City party members under 700 and 117 of the result of telephone conversations did not have paid the party membership fee directly. Of that, Nonindicted 1’s number of the local constituency is 20 party members, and the body and signature on Nonindicted 1’s letter of admission to the party members are similar to the body of Nonindicted 1, and three of Nonindicted 7, etc. from among the party members suspected of paying the party membership fee by proxy, Nonindicted 1 had already died on January 206.

(C) On February 13, 2006, the public notice was registered to the effect that “The case of paying the party membership fee that occurred in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City is being investigated by the City/Do party itself.” The public notice was made to the effect that by February 21, 2006, the party membership fee shall be voluntarily reported by the City/Do party.”

(D) On February 25, 2006, Nonindicted 4 personally asked questions concerning the payment of the party membership fee to the person suspected of being suspected, by investigating Nonindicted 1 on February 25, 2006. However, the relevant persons denied the suspicion, and there is no specific evidence to prove that they paid the party membership fee, and then, Nonindicted 4 reported a list of six suspected persons including Nonindicted 1’s name to the chairperson of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party and the central party.

(E) As to the above investigation of Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 4, who was the strong pressure investigation, was raised against the suspect, the Standing Committee of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party of the Daegu Metropolitan City on March 2006, organized the fact-finding sub-committee, and investigated them by means of submitting a written statement separately from the suspect.

(f) On April 18, 2006, the Daegu Metropolitan City Party made an investigation into the payment of the party membership fee as above, and the names of the suspected parties related thereto were determined that the Daegu Metropolitan City Party did not take specific measures against the party members. On April 18, 2006, the Daegu Metropolitan City Party made a notice to the effect that, in accordance with the procedural provisions after the Daegu Metropolitan City Party came to be aware of the payment of the party membership fee, the Daegu Metropolitan City Party would demand immediate action and, if not, seek a judicial decision. On the 25th of the same month and the 28th of the same month, the notice was posted on the website of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (the name of a political party omitted). On the 28th of the same month as the 25th of the same month (the name of a political party omitted) by signing 90 members of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party on the Internet. On the other hand, there were some party members belonging to the above party members.

(G) Around 16:22 on April 24, 2006, the Defendant called to Nonindicted 2, the chairman of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted), Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the local government omitted) senior citizens, and confirmed the content of Nonindicted 1’s investigation on the suspicion that he paid the party membership fee to the political party, and filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office at the meeting (the name of the political party omitted) unless he takes measures at the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted). The Defendant called to the effect that, on the same day, the Defendant was eligible for proportional representation (the name of the local government omitted) of the party (the name of the political party omitted). The Defendant called to Nonindicted 2 by phoneing Nonindicted 2 at around 14:58 of the same month, and “Non-Indicted 1 was unable to have a commercial high school and paid the party membership fee for the deceased, and there was a problem that he paid it to the public and absolute.”

(h) On May 2, 2006, Nonindicted Party 1 appeared at the Daegu Metropolitan City Standing Committee of the Party (the name of the political party omitted), which was held in public on May 2, 2006, and there is a question that Nonindicted Party 1 paid the party membership fee by proxy during the party, and Nonindicted Party 1 demanded that Nonindicted Party 1 pay the party membership fee by proxy.

(i) On the other hand, Nonindicted 1 graduated from (school name omitted) commercial high schools.

(2) Fact-finding and expression of opinion

Article 250(3) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides for false facts that are inconsistent with the truth and are sufficient enough to have the elector correct judgment on candidates for the intra-party competition. However, if a statement is merely an expression of opinion that contains a simple value judgment or evaluation, it shall not be applicable. Whether a statement is a true statement or an expression of opinion, with the legislative intent of ensuring the fairness of election, shall be determined in consideration of the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context in which the expression in question is used, the possibility of proof, and the social situation in which the expression was made. Furthermore, if the expression is not objectively existing as a document, but is a statement between a person and a person, it shall be considered that the content is nothing more than a part of a human memory.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the horses were used in relation to the payment of the party membership fee to Nonindicted Party 1, and the problem related to the payment of the party membership fee to Nonindicted Party 1 was discussed at the time (the name of the political party omitted), it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s opinion was merely an expression of the Defendant’s opinion on April 24, 2006 that “No. 1 is eligible for proportional representation for the (the name of the local government omitted) Gu (the name of the political party)” among the contents stated to Nonindicted Party 2 on April 29, 206, and that “No. 1 is available or is allowed to be used for the reason that it was absolutely against Nonindicted Party 1.” on the premise of the fact that the party membership fee was paid for the party membership fee to Nonindicted Party 1 or the controversy over it was in place.

(3) False facts

(A) In order to establish the crime of publishing false facts, it is necessary for the prosecutor to actively prove the fact that the public prosecutor made public the fact is false. The crime of publishing false facts cannot be established merely with the fact that the public prosecutor has no proof that it is true. In determining whether or not the public prosecutor has fulfilled the above burden of proof, the prosecutor who is the active party must prove it without reasonable doubt if the absence of a specific act at a specific period and at a specific place is involved in the absence of a specific act. However, it is impossible for the prosecutor to prove the absence of a specific act in the specified period and space. However, it is more easy to prove the existence of a non-existence of a fact that is not specified in the social norms, while it is difficult to prove the existence of such fact in the light of social norms, it should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the burden of proof. Therefore, a person who actively asserts that there is a suspicion against the person who asserts that there is no suspicion should be a burden of proving such fact, and the prosecutor can prove the existence of a false fact by impeachmenting the credibility of the materials presented at least 20.

(B) First, we examine the part of the Defendant’s statement made to Nonindicted 2 on April 29, 2006 that “Non-Indicted 1 has come to fall short of a commercial high school.” According to the above acknowledged facts, the academic background of Non-Indicted 1 is deemed to have graduated from a (school name omitted) commercial high school, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above facts are false (i.e., Non-Indicted 1’s curriculum completion of two years in the curriculum of Non-Indicted 1’s family law college attached to the previous evidence No. 4).

(C) Next, we examine the part of the Defendant’s statement to Nonindicted 2 on April 24, 2006 and the part of the Defendant’s statement that “The following facts were revealed as a result of the investigation conducted by Nonindicted 1 on the charge of paying the party membership fee on a yearly basis, and that Nonindicted 1 filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office at the seat of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (which omitted the name of the political party), and that “No. 1 filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office without taking measures at the Daegu Metropolitan City Party. There was an issue of paying the party membership fee for the dead party membership fee.”

Before the Defendant made the above remarks to Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1 was investigated by Nonindicted 4 on charges related to the payment of the party membership fee, and some party members including the party members belonging to the Party, discussed issues related to the payment of the party membership fee to the Daegu Metropolitan City Party of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted), and posted a notice that would take judicial measures if no action is taken by the Daegu Metropolitan City Party of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted) on the Internet homepage of the Daegu Metropolitan City (the name of the political party omitted). Furthermore, as seen earlier, in relation to the phrase, “The suspicion of paying the party membership fee by Nonindicted 1 was confirmed, and Nonindicted 1 paid the party membership fee by proxy,” it means that “ Nonindicted 1 paid the party membership fee by proxy,” as a whole, and it is examined as to whether there was a prosecutor’s proof as to whether such fact was false.

The defendant's defense counsel submitted the written application for joining the non-indicted 8 and the non-indicted 37 of the party members who are suspected of paying the party membership fee on behalf of the non-indicted 1 as evidence 3, and according to the changed evidence 3, the written application for joining the above written application is very similar to the written application of non-indicted 1 stated in the written application for joining the Lee Sung-hee, and all signature parts are written in Korean or Chinese characters.

The following facts can be acknowledged according to each description of evidence Nos. 4, 6 (each investigation report), 5 (written statement), 7 (record of internal investigation) and 8 (the Political Funds Act, etc.) submitted by the prosecutor.

① Nonindicted 9, a secretary for a National Assembly member, arranged the main features of the telephone investigation adviser at the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (the name of the political party omitted). In addition, Nonindicted 9 stated that, in addition to the details arranged by Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 1’s payment of the party membership fee is doubtful in relation to Nonindicted 10 through 17, Nonindicted 1’s payment of the party membership fee.

② As a result of the prosecutor’s additional investigation, Nonindicted Party 10 and Nonindicted Party 11 confirmed that Nonindicted Party 10 and Nonindicted Party 11 did not have telephone conversations, among which the prosecutor’s additional investigation results, Nonindicted Party 10 and Nonindicted Party 11 confirmed that Nonindicted Party 10 did not have telephone conversations, and Nonindicted Party 12 and 13 paid party membership fees by preparing a written application for joining the prosecution, and Nonindicted Party 15, 16, and 17 entered the prosecution, such as preparing the written application for joining the prosecution, but Nonindicted Party 14 responded that Nonindicted Party 14 did not have been admitted.

③ On November 1, 2006, the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office stated that Nonindicted 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20 pertaining to the payment of the party membership fee to Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 19 of the Daegu Metropolitan City Party (the name of the political party omitted), respectively, were reversed, and that Nonindicted 10, 14, 11, 16, 21, and 22 were not memory, and contrary to Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 19’s proof of the fact that they were suspected of paying the party membership fee, the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office made a statement to reverse the fact that they were paying the party membership fee, and that there was no evidence to prove the fact that they were paying the party membership fee to Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 19.

According to the above facts, it was not revealed that Nonindicted 10 through 17 added to the details of Nonindicted 9’s reorganization that Nonindicted 10 or 17 was related to the payment of the party membership fee by Nonindicted 1, or that it was made under any ground. All the above eight persons received an internal intent from Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 19 as a person related to the payment of the party membership fee by proxy, and no evidence was found as to whether Nonindicted 1 paid their party membership fee by proxy against the party members as shown in the evidence submitted by the prosecutor under subparagraph 3.

Thus, the above evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the prosecutor did not impeachment the credibility of the prosecutor's specific supporting materials related to the payment of the party membership fee to non-indicted 1. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there is a prosecutor's active proof as to the falsity of the above fact, and there is no other supporting evidence.

3. Judgment on the ancillary facts charged

A. Preliminary facts charged

On May 31, 2006, the Defendant, a vice-chairperson of the Daegu Metropolitan City City City Party (the name of a political party omitted) which was implemented on May 31, 2006, was elected as a candidate for the (the name of a political party omitted) proportional representative member of the (the name of a local government omitted), but was dissipated. In order for Nonindicted Party 1, a chairman of the Council on Women of Daegu to not be elected as a member of the Council of Council (the name of a local government omitted) to not be elected as a member of the (the name of a political party omitted), published each false fact as to the person who is disadvantageous to Nonindicted Party 1 as described in Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act (the public prosecutor is a provision punishing a person who publicly announces a false fact to be favorable to the candidate for the purpose of being elected. This seems to be a mistake as stated in Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act).

(b) Markets:

In full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Party 1 committed an act identical to the ancillary charge with that of the Defendant for the purpose of preventing him from being elected as a member of the Council (the name of the local government omitted). Moreover, the lack of prosecutor’s proof as to the fact that the act indicated in the ancillary charge constitutes the publication of false facts is examined in the judgment on the primary charge

(1) Article 250(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act applies to the public election of local council members, etc.; Article 250(3) of the same Act applies to the public election of local council members, etc.; and Article 250(1) and (2) of the same Act applies to the public election of local council members, which applies to the public election of local council members, and in light of the fact that the public election of local council members, etc. is to elect candidates to run in the public election of local council members, etc. inside a political party, it cannot be deemed as a preliminary provision applicable to the public

(2) Article 250(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “The purpose of election for public office is to publish false facts for the purpose of preventing or not to be elected in public office.” Article 250(3) provides that a candidate for the intra-party competition shall publish false facts for the purpose of “to become or not to become a candidate for public office recommended by a political party.” Thus, the purpose of each of the above provisions, which regulates the election for public office and the intra-party competition, is different.

(3) In order for the Defendant to be subject to Article 250(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act as the ancillary facts charged, “Non-Indicted 1’s purpose is to prevent the election from being held in an election for public office,” but there is no evidence to prove this. However, the Defendant was only for the purpose that Non-Indicted 1 was unable to become a candidate for public office (the name of a political party omitted) and Non-Indicted 1’s statement or opinion on the payment of the party membership fee to Non-Indicted 2 inside the political party. As such, it cannot be presumed that the facts or opinion made inside the political party are consistent with the purpose of the defeat of the election for public office or that the latter is presumed by the former.

(4) Furthermore, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant expressed the negative facts or opinions on Nonindicted 1, and the Defendant’s election is determined in accordance with the ratio of political party profit, it is difficult to deem that there was the purpose of Nonindicted 1’s failure to be a candidate for the party (the name of a political party omitted), which goes beyond the “purpose that Nonindicted 1 would not become a candidate for the party (the name of a political party omitted),” and it is difficult to deem that there was “non-Indicted 1’s intention not to be an official candidate for the party (the name of a local government omitted)” in order to prevent the election from being held in the (the name of a local government) district, by multiplying the percentage of votes obtained by the constituency election commission in question by the number of proportional representative local council members.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged around the instant case and the ancillary facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of each crime, the judgment of innocence is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced in accordance with Article 58

Judges Yoon Jong-gu (Presiding Judge)