2015Do11804 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A person shall be appointed.

2. B

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

Law Firm (with limited liability)N

Attorney AW, AO, Q

Seoul High Court Decision 2015No663 Decided July 10, 2015

2016, 3.10

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the act of contribution to I Co., Ltd., the lower court acknowledged facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the instant loss apportionment agreement between H and I Co., Ltd. cannot be deemed as an act of contribution prohibited under the Public Official Election Act because it is not recognized as gratuitous, and thus, reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants of this part of the facts charged and acquitted them

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

2. As to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the act of donation to the aged 65 years or older, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges, on the ground that the act of early implementation of the senior executive system and allowing the public to use it free of charge for the aged 65 years or older, does not constitute a contribution act as an act based on an official duty under Article 112(2)4(a) of the Public Official Election Act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, although there are some inappropriate points at the time of the judgment below’s explanation, the conclusion of the judgment below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the act of duties without justifiable grounds under Article 1

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jae-han