logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2013.09.25 2013노337
공직선거법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. While recognizing the fact that the Defendant prepared and posted a notice of the facts charged, the Defendant’s defense counsel did not prepare a letter during the election period and did not change the purpose of preventing G from being elected.

B. Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act, which prohibits a candidate from making comments during the election period, does not require the act of slandering a candidate during the election period, and therefore, a lawsuit that does not constitute a crime for the reason that the act of slandering a candidate is not prepared during the election period itself cannot be accepted.

C. Whether there was “the purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected” under Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act ought to be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s social status, personal relationship with the Defendant and the candidate for an election or candidate for a competition, motive, details and method of, and method of, the act, details and manner of, the act, nature and scope of the other party, and social situation at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do168, Mar. 10, 201). In such a case, “the purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected” is sufficient if there is awareness that the candidate is not elected, and does not require active desire or desire to cause the result.

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the Defendant may be deemed to have slandered the G to become a candidate for the 18th presidential election with a view to preventing the election from being elected.

(1) above.

arrow