The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts: (a) in the 20th election for the National Assembly member in the 20th constituency constituency (hereinafter “instant election”) in Gyeongnam-do, which was implemented on April 13, 2016, the fact that the Defendant, the representative of the party, decided as the elected person the E candidate for the recommendation of the D Party was significant in this court.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the election of this case is invalid for the following reasons. A.

Since the ballot counting machine used in the election of this case constitutes an integrated system of ballot counting devices and ballot counting computers that output ballot papers and control them, the use of the ballot counting machine is limited to the special election pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Addenda of the Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (amended by March 16, 1994), and even if it is a computer system pursuant to Article 278 of the Public Official Election Act, it does not abide by the procedural provisions, such as public relations for the electors as provided in the main sentence of Article 278(4) of the Public Official Election Act and consultation with the political parties that form negotiating groups in the National Assembly, so the election of this case cannot be deemed

B. The main sentence of Article 178(3) of the Public Official Election Act, which requires members of the Gu/Si/Gun election commission to sign or seal the ballot counting instead of signing and sealing the ballot-counting table, is unconstitutional since it does not guarantee the accuracy of the ballot-counting. Therefore, it is unconstitutional to limit the number of ballot-counting witnesses without limiting the number of ballot-counting boxes opened at the same time under Articles 178(1) and 181(2) of the Public Official Election Act, which is unconstitutional, and to limit the number of ballot-counting witnesses to a certain size. Moreover, the Defendant did not post the ballot-counting table at the time of the instant election at the same time outside of the ballot-counting place, was not a public official or assistant public official, and

3. Determination

A. The election lawsuit stipulated in Articles 222 and 224 of the Public Official Election Act is about the election as a collective act.