Defendant

The last executive officer (prosecutions, public trials), Park Jin-jins, Lee Jong-young, and the Korean Grand Prize (Public Trial)

Law Firm oriented and 3 others

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

The Defendant is a person who has been elected as the superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education on June 4, 2014 at the 6th nationwide local election. The Defendant shall not publish false facts with respect to a candidate, his/her spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, or sibling, in a manner unfavorable to the candidate through a speech, broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or other means, with the intention of prohibiting the election

1. Publication of false facts by means of the regular session of the National Assembly on May 25, 2014;

Although the Defendant was registered as a candidate for the Superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education on May 20, 2014, the support rate for the candidate for the Superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education was 130.1%, 18.1%, 10.2%, Defendant 10.2% (populated media book) around May 22, 2014, Non-Indicted 125.6%, Non-Indicted 18.4%, 18.6%, and 6.6% (Central Day Survey and Research Team) of the Defendant, compared to Non-Indicted 1 and 18, there was a high need to convert the border into the country, such as raising personal guidance.

피고인과 피고인의 공보담당자인 공소외 3, 공소외 5는 2014. 5. 24.경 인터넷 트위터 상에 ◎◎◎◎ 기자인 공소외 2가 “서울시교육감 후보로 나선 공소외 1 후보는 자녀들을 어디서 공부시키셨나요? 한국에서 공부를 시키지 않으셨다면 왜 그러신 건가요? 본인 역시 미국 영주권을 갖고 계시지요? 정말 한국의 교육을 걱정하십니까? 걱정할 만큼 잘 알고 계십니까? 궁금합니다”라는 내용을 게시한 것을 주1) 확인하였으나, 단순 의혹제기에 불과한 위와 같은 공소외 2의 글에 대하여 공소외 2에게 위 트위터 내용이 사실인지 여부를 확인하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 공소외 1이 2003년 무렵 출간한 「□□□□□□」는 책에 공소외 1의 영주권에 대한 설명 및 자녀들의 시민권 취득에 대한 내용이 기재되어 있어 공소외 1이 영주권을 보유하지 않았음을 쉽게 확인할 수 있었음에도 이러한 내용을 확인하지 않은 채, 2014. 5. 24. 밤 무렵 위 공소외 2의 트위터 내용에서 더 나아가 “공소외 1이 두 자녀를 미국에서 교육시켜 미국 영주권을 보유하고 있으며, 공소외 1 자신 또한 미국에서 근무할 때 미국 영주권을 보유하였다”는 취지의 기자회견문을 작성한 후 별다른 확인 조치 없이 공소외 2의 위 트위터 내용만을 근거로 인지도 제고 및 국면전환 등을 위해 기자회견을 강행하기로 마음먹었다.

On May 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 11:00 on May 25, 2014, at the regular meeting of the National Assembly Secretariat of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “The candidate for Nonparty 1”, as the title of “Non-Party 1’s and two children’s non-Party 1’s permanent residence issues, i.e., de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto. According to the information received by Defendant Camp, the candidate for Non-Party 1 owns two children and has the permanent residence rights in the United States, and he also retains the permanent residence rights in the United States when working in the United States. If this information is true, Non-Party 1’s candidate for Non-Party 1 was aware of the fact that he holds the permanent residence rights in the Republic of Korea.” Moreover, Non-Party 1’s candidate for Non-Party 1 appears to have been able to present the following matters in the way of reporting that Non-Party 1 was holding a single’s permanent residence.

However, in addition to the above Twitter, the Defendant did not have been informed of Non-Indicted 1’s possession of permanent sovereignty, and Non-Indicted 1’s children born in the United States and worked for Non-Indicted 1 with the U.S. citizen or Non-Indicted 1’s permanent residence right.

Accordingly, the Defendant published false facts for the purpose of preventing Nonindicted 1, who was a candidate for the superintendent of Seoul Office of Education from being elected.

2. The publication of false facts by “the answer that sets the thickness of candidates for Nonparty 1” published on the Internet on May 26, 2014.

At around 15:16 on May 25, 2014, Non-Indicted 1, on the Defendant’s press dog, as mentioned in paragraph 1 above, posted the Defendant’s press dog on the Internet, stating that “In order to maintain the permanent residence of the United States, Non-Indicted 1 shall visit the United States once a year, but no one has left the United States for a period of ten years since he returned to the Republic of Korea in 1991. However, in his book, Non-Indicted 1 recommended Non-Indicted 1 to be granted permanent residence rights at the ro law firm belick C&D Sentent for a period of two years, but Non-Indicted 1 did not apply for permanent residence rights, and his children did not apply for permanent residence rights. In addition, Non-Indicted 1 stated that Non-Indicted 1’s press dog was paid back to the United States.”

On the other hand, on the same day, Nonindicted 3 prepared a statement from Nonindicted 2 that Nonindicted 1 had a suspicion of possession of permanent sovereignty against Nonindicted 1, and reported it to the Defendant, without giving instructions or taking measures to confirm whether Nonindicted 1 holds permanent sovereignty despite Nonindicted 1’s receipt of text messages to Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3, even though Nonindicted 3 did not confirm the contents of Nonindicted 1’s above book, it did not confirm the existence of permanent sovereignty by Non-Indicted 1’s possession of Nonindicted 1’s permanent sovereignty from Non-Indicted 8. Although Non-Indicted 1 presented an open letter to the public, the Defendant failed to give instructions or take measures to confirm whether Non-Indicted 1 holds permanent residence rights.

The Defendant, around May 26, 2014, at the election office of the Defendant of the third floor of Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) ○○○○ building, stated “In accordance with a number of testimony reported to the Low Camp, Non-Indicted 1, the thickness of Non-Indicted 1’s candidate rans away from Gongcheon, “I do not have any opinion. I do not live in the U.S. permanent residence right. I do you live in the U.S.?” The remarks of Non-Indicted 1 candidate include the will of Non-Indicted 1 candidate and journalists. If the Defendant received the permanent residence right of Non-Indicted 1’s Non-Indicted 1’s candidate, he gets son’s non-Indicted 1’s permanent residence right, that is the day preceding the day when the requirements are strengthened, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to send his e-mail and e-mail to the effect that it is difficult for each of the voters to send his e-mail 20th election campaign as shown above.

However, the Defendant did not have been informed of a number of testimony about the above contents, and Nonindicted Party 1, a member of the National Assembly from 2008 to 2012, who had been a member of the U.S. from 1993 to 2014, did not have any fact of departure from the U.S. and did not have any right of permanent residence in the U.S. since 5 days from 1993 to 2014, and there was no fact that he or she held any right of permanent residence in the U.S., and that he or she or journal around March 2012, who was a member of the U.S.

Accordingly, the Defendant published false facts for the purpose of preventing Nonindicted 1, who was a candidate for the superintendent of Seoul Office of Education from being elected.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 19

1. Copy of the protocol of examination of Nonindicted Party 2 by prosecution

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3

1. 각 수사보고[공소외 1의 미국 영주권자에 대한 확인, 공소외 1의 미국 영주권 소유 여부 확인, 서울시 교육감 지지율과 피고인 기자회견 내용에 대한, ◎◎◎◎ 공소외 2 기자의 트위터 내용 관련, 공소외 1 미국 영주권 보유 의혹의 흐름에 대한, ◎◎◎◎ 공소외 2 기자 트윗글 첨부 보고, 선거여론조사 결과 확인 보고, 통합 통화내역 첨부 보고, 공소외 1 영주권 소유 의혹관련 언론기사 첨부 보고, 공소외 1 추가 고소와 관련된 피고인 SBS 등 라디오 인터뷰 내용 보고, 주한미국 대사관 이민국 공소외 20 전화통화내용 보고, 공소외 1 개인별 출입국 기록상의 ‘미상’ 기록에 대한 출입국 기록 확인보고, 주한미국 대사관 회신 공한(외교노트) 접수 보고, 외교노트 관련 자료 첨부보고]

1. 여권발급 기록 조회서, 2014. 5. 15. 중앙일보 기사 ‘서울교육감 지지율 공소외 1, 공소외 18 1, 2위’, 2014. 5. 25. 세계일보 기사 ‘공소외 1 발언 논란 ’일파만파‘…전교조 “즉각 사과하라”’, ‘공소외 1 후보는 미영주권 문제를 즉각 해명하라’ 피고인 기자회견문, 각 공소외 1 출입국 현황, 2014. 5. 25. CBS 노컷뉴스 기사 ‘피고인 “공소외 1 미국 영주권 문제 해명하라”’, ‘□□□□□□’ 책자 중 일부 사본(수사기록 제458쪽), ‘피고인 후보님께 드리는 편지’ 제하 블로그에 올린 글 사본, ‘공소외 1 후보님께 드리는 답신’ 제하 블로그에 올린 글 사본, 공소외 2 기자 공소외 1 관련 트윗글 3부, 5. 20. 밀워드 브라운 미디어 리서치 서울시교육감후보 지지도, 5. 22. 중앙일보 조사연구팀 서울시장(0521) 선거 여론조사, 임시 근로자 또는 훈련인을 위한 고용주의 신청서, H-1 비자신청을 위한 고용주 추천서, 공소외 1이 학생비자 F-1에서 H-1비자로 변경하는 신청서, 관련 언론기사, ‘공소외 9의 ♤♤♤♤♤♤’ 다시듣기화면 및 피고인 후보 인터뷰 게시화면 출력물, ‘안녕하십니까 공소외 10입니다’ 홈페이지에서 출력한 공소외 1 및 피고인 인터뷰 전문, 소명자료 제출(공소외 1), 각 법무부 출입국관리소 이민정보과 회신, 인천국제공항공사 회신, 공소외 1의 여권 사본(1991. 12. 17. 발급), 공소외 1의 여권 사본(1997. 7. 30. 발급), 공소외 1의 여권 사본(2007. 5. 16. 발급), 공소외 1의 여권 사본(2008. 7. 2. 발급), 2. 청원서 등 공소외 1 제출 영문서류에 대한 번역문(기록 630~632P), 3. 비이민지위 변경신청서 등 공소외 1 제출 영문서류에 대한 번역문(기록 633~637P), 외교노트, 외교노트 번역

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, and Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act (the crime referred to in paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be inclusive, and the selection of fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Cumulative Punishment for Concurrent Crimes as provided for in Article 2 of the Local Education Autonomy Act)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. As to the assertion that an indictment constitutes abuse of the right to prosecute

A. Relevant legal principles

A prosecutor has the discretionary power to decide whether to institute a public prosecution in consideration of the suspect’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime. Thus, the institution of a public prosecution following the exercise of discretionary power above cannot be deemed an abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution unless it is recognized that the institution of a public prosecution significantly deviates from the authority to institute a public prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do577, Dec. 10, 199; 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006; 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). To recognize that a prosecutor clearly deviates from the authority to institute a public prosecution as an arbitrary exercise of the authority to institute a public prosecution is insufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least at least there is an incomplete or complete intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9737, Feb.

B. Determination

The first Seoul Special Metropolitan City Election Commission issued a warning to the same purport as the facts charged of this case, and the prosecutor sent the facts charged of this case to the police without suspicion, and then the prosecution of this case is recognized. However, the warning disposition by the election commission is a kind of administrative disposition, which does not legally affect the prosecutor's investigation and prosecution, and the prosecutor's disposition, which is the final judgment authority, is not bound by the prosecutor's disposition, as a supplementary and intermediate judgment. Furthermore, the prosecutor prosecuted the defendant and other candidates only for the part against which the charge is recognized after sufficiently investigating the defendant and other candidates, and issued a non-prosecution disposition on the remaining charges. In light of the circumstances leading up to the prosecution and the transmission of this case, including the defendant's non-compliance with the request for appearance by the prosecutor, the prosecutor's allegation that the prosecution and the defense counsel clearly deviates from the scope of discretion imposed on the prosecution of this case cannot be readily concluded.

2. As to the assertion that it is merely an expression of opinion, not an announcement of fact

A. Relevant legal principles

The term "statement of fact" means a concept substituted for an expression of opinion with a value judgment or evaluation, which refers to a report or statement of specific past or present facts in a time and spatial context, and its contents can be proven by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Do4023, Mar. 11, 2004). Whether an expression is false or not shall be determined based on the overall impression provided to electors in light of the objective contents of expression, the ordinary meaning of the used words, the connection method of phrases, etc. under the premise of the overall purport of the expression, in relation to the ordinary method of expression, under the premise of the general method of expression contact with the general purpose of the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Do25019, Feb. 28, 2003). Thus, even if an expression of false or false is used as an expression of opinion, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a violation of Article 250 (2) (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Do2916, Mar. 28, 29, 2019).

B. Determination

1) With respect to the crime described in paragraph (1) of the holding, the Defendant stated that, “If you have come to know,” the Defendant used the family expression “if you have received a permanent residence right,” or “if you have come to know, I would have received a permanent residence right by using the family expression “if you have come to know,” and that the Defendant’s statement was received from others. However, according to the criteria for distinguishing what allegations presented in the above precedents, the Defendant’s statement stated in paragraph (1) of the holding stated in the judgment of the Defendant stated that “I would have obtained a permanent residence right of the United States at the time of U.S. employment, and hold it until May 25, 2014,” and the content of the statement constitutes an expression of fact, since it can be proven by evidence.

2) With respect to the crime described in Paragraph 2 of the holding, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was informed of the content of the Defendant’s writing or statement from others. However, according to the criteria to distinguish which argument presented in the above case is true, or whether it is an expression of opinion, the Defendant stated in Paragraph 2 of the holding that “Nonindicted 1 had a permanent residence in the United States at the time of his/her / her Gongcheon-do,” and the content of the statement constitutes an expression of fact, since it can be proven by evidence.

3) Accordingly, we cannot accept this part of the argument.

3. As to the assertion that there is no proof as to whether the alleged facts are false

A. Relevant legal principles

Whether an expression constitutes a false representation or expression shall be determined on the basis of the overall increase provided to electors, comprehensively taking into account the objective content of the expression and the ordinary meaning of the words used, under the premise of the general method of expression abutting on the overall purport of the expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8947, Feb. 11, 2010). Whether it is false or not is a matter consistent with the truth, and it is sufficient for the elector to have the physical strength to the extent that it can mislead the accurate judgment of the candidate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003). Meanwhile, in order to establish the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, it is necessary for the prosecutor to actively prove the fact that the publication is false, and there is no proof that the fact is true (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1284, Dec. 127, 2012).

B. Determination

In addition to the above legal principles based on the evidence of each judgment, Nonindicted Party 1 did not obtain the permanent residence of the United States at the time of service in the United States or thereafter, and as a result, it can be recognized that the Defendant did not hold the permanent residence of the United States at the time of service in the United States, or at the time of May 25, 2014. Accordingly, the facts alleged by the Defendant constitute false facts that are inconsistent with the truth and are likely to cause the elector to make an accurate judgment on the candidate.

1) Non-Indicted 1 did not apply for permanent residence at the time of U.S. employment, and Non-Indicted 1 visited the U.S. from January 15, 1993 to January 20, 2010; and Non-Indicted 1’s visa is a non-resident who is not issued to the permanent resident.

2) Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “no person has filed an application for permanent residence in the United States” in this court, and the diplomatic nanotechnology submitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Embassy of the United States stated that “no person has obtained a permanent residence in the United States.”

4. As to the assertion that the defendant did not recognize that the above fact was false, and that there was a reasonable ground to believe that the fact was true

A. Relevant legal principles

In the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, it is necessary to recognize that the fact was made public as the content of the actor’s intentional act. Since it is difficult to know or prove such subjective perception in light of its nature, the existence or absence of such subjective perception should be determined normatively by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, circumstances surrounding the publication, time of the publication, and the objectively anticipated ripple effect, based on the contents of the publication, the existence and content of the explanation, the source of the fact expressed by the Defendant, and the background leading up to the acknowledgement of the fact revealed by the Defendant. In a case where a certain answer is heard and a strong doubt is made public, or where it is recognized that the Defendant’s timely specific facts are possible by social norms without making efforts for such confirmation, it can be recognized as incomplete intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do5190, Feb. 26, 2004; 201Do21841, Jun. 214. 214.

Under a democratic political system, the freedom of speech is the most fundamental right and its sufficient guarantee in the election process is not easy. Since it is necessary and important to verify the candidate's eligibility to take charge of public service in the election of public officials, the freedom of speech for the purpose of verification of eligibility should also be guaranteed. For this purpose, in a case where there are circumstances doubting the candidate's illegality or morality, the filing of a question should be allowed. Before the public decision is made, the raising of suspicion should not be easily obstructed. On the other hand, in a case where a wide range of grounds for suspicion is allowed, even if the suspicion is revealed to be true, it would be prejudicial to the candidate's reputation even if it is revealed to be true, and it would result in a significant result that misleads the candidate's choice in an imminent election, and it would substantially go against the public interest, and even if it is necessary to verify whether it is a candidate's eligibility to take charge of public service, the candidate's assertion of truth should not be justified in the event that there is no other reasonable reason to acknowledge the existence of such suspicion.

B. Determination

If the above legal principles are added to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, it is recognized that the verification of whether the specific facts alleged by the defendant are true is possible under the social norms at time and physically. Nevertheless, as long as the defendant actively takes place without making efforts to confirm such facts, he/she may be found not guilty of the defendant. Even if based on the evidence presented by the defendant, it is recognized that there is a considerable reason to believe that such suspicion is true, and thus, the defendant shall be held liable as a publication of false facts.

1) As to the crime described in Paragraph 1 of the judgment

A) At the time of the statement in Paragraph (1) of the holding, the election day was five days in advance and ten days in advance. According to the results of the previous opinion survey on May 25, 2014, the Defendant’s support rate at the time of the above statement was only about 10% and was disadvantageous compared to the support rate of Nonindicted Party 1, the other party to the publication.

B) On May 23, 2014, the Defendant received from Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 a report on Nonindicted 1’s permanent residence right in Twitter, as described in paragraph (1) of the judgment by Nonindicted 2, stating that “The Defendant posted an article on Nonindicted 1’s permanent residence right in the U.S., and accordingly, there was suspicion as to whether Nonindicted 1’s permanent residence right is held.” However, at the time, the aforementioned suspicion was not yet published through broadcast or newspapers, and only some of the persons who confirmed the content of Twitter prepared by Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 2 or the content of Twitter’s tweet were raising suspicion.

C) Even after receiving the above report, the Defendant did not confirm whether “the authenticity of the content of Nonindicted 2 Twitter” by Nonindicted 2, or did not instruct Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 to verify the further necessary confirmation.

The Defendant stated in this court that “At the time Nonindicted 2’s Twitter content, public opinion on the Internet, result of Internet search, etc., Nonindicted 1 was likely to hold permanent residence in the United States, and that it was not important to confirm the authenticity of the Twitter content from Nonindicted 2, because the Defendant did not have any means to objectively confirm it, and thus, Nonindicted 1 demanded an explanation from Nonindicted 1.”

At around 10:52 on May 25, 2014, immediately before the reporter conference as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment by Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3 received the phone from Nonindicted 2, but the Defendant received the phone from Nonindicted 3 after the reporter conference as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment. Nonindicted 2 consistently stated that the possession of Nonindicted 1’s sovereignty in the U.S. is unclear at the time of the first call between Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 3 in the prosecutor’s office and this court, and that Nonindicted 2 consistently stated that it would be more known to Nonindicted 3.

D) On May 24, 2014, Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 3 drafted a written reply without confirming whether the Twitter’s content as indicated in the judgment with Non-Indicted 2 was true. Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 3, even though they did not have received information from a third party, prepared a written reply with the content of “in compliance with the report.” Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 3, and the Defendant did not confirm whether a third party was actually informed.

Nonindicted 5 or Nonindicted 3 reviewed the corresponding portion of the book that Nonindicted 1 opened within the camp at the time of preparing a guide book. As such, Nonindicted 1 was able to easily verify that Nonindicted 1 was not able to obtain permanent residence, Nonindicted 5 or Nonindicted 3 prepared a guide book by referring only to the favorable part of the content of the book, without any verification. Nonindicted 2 prepared a guide book by referring only to the part that was favorable to the content of the book, and additionally prepared the part of “by providing education to the United States,” and “by providing education to the two children, who were not entered in the twitter’s decision by Nonindicted 2.”

E) The Defendant did not verify whether the U.S. Embassy or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea can confirm the existence of another person’s permanent sovereignty in the Republic of Korea or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and whether he/she can obtain documents proving that he/she did not obtain his/her permanent residence, and did not instruct Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 to do so.

Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 confirmed the career, family relationship, etc. of Nonindicted 1 through the Internet search, and did not inquire about the general contents of the permanent residence of the United States of America or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and did not receive advice from the experts of the Civil Act on the permanent residence of the United States. On this, the Defendant asserted that he was given advice on the permanent residence of the United States from Nonindicted 21, but Nonindicted 5 stated to the effect that “the advice received from Nonindicted 21 is after Nonindicted 1’s dismissal.”

F) The Defendant asserted, through Nonindicted 22, that Nonindicted 1’s election campaign was confirmed prior to Nonindicted 1’s statement as indicated in Nonindicted 1’s judgment, but Nonindicted 5 testified to the effect that “I could not hear the result of confirmation from Nonindicted 22 before Nonindicted 1’s statement as indicated in paragraph (1).”

2) As to the crime described in Paragraph 2 of the judgment

A) The Defendant sent or made a statement as described in paragraph (2) of the same purport by citing only the conversation between Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 confirmed at the time indicated in paragraph (1) of the judgment, despite Nonindicted 1’s reply from Nonindicted 1 that “child has acquired U.S. citizenship, but he does not have acquired U.S. permanent residence.”

B) In order to verify the credibility of Nonindicted 1’s Twitter’s writing written by Nonindicted 2, the Defendant did not examine Nonindicted 2 in detail the developments and timing of Nonindicted 2’s hearing Nonindicted 1 the horses that Nonindicted 2 “is a permanent resident of the United States” from Nonindicted 1, and whether Nonindicted 2 had a friendly relationship with Nonindicted 1, and did not instruct Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 3 to confirm it.

C) Non-Indicted 2 stated that “The call with Non-Indicted 3 was made, but it was not certain to Non-Indicted 3, and Non-Indicted 1 was informed to Non-Indicted 8.” In addition, Non-Indicted 2 stated that Nonindicted 2’s posting of the comments in his judgment in Twitter in the prosecutor’s office and this court would put an issue at a public interest level, but it would not be satisfying due to lack of objective data, and that Non-Indicted 1’s holding of U.S. sovereignty in Twitter. Meanwhile, Non-Indicted 2 published Twitter to the effect that if it is clearly presented relevant documentary evidence on May 26, 2014, it would be i.e., if you clearly present the relevant documentary evidence, and on May 27, 2014, published Twitter to the effect that the suspicion would be terminated with Non-Indicted 1’s submission of documents, but it would be reasonable to twit.

D) Nonindicted 7, who was the chairman of the Defendant’s election countermeasure headquarters, made a call with Nonindicted 8 in order to confirm whether Nonindicted 1’s U.S. permanent sovereignty was held in this court, and Nonindicted 8 made a statement from Nonindicted 8 that he was friendly with Nonindicted 1 and that he was able to speak “not to speak.” On the other hand, Nonindicted 8 made a statement that Nonindicted 8 clearly responded to Nonindicted 7 because she knew of the fact in this court.

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 did not have the permanent residence of the United States but there is a low possibility that Nonindicted 8 would have made the personal information to the effect that it was “the permanent residence of the United States,” and that Nonindicted 8 did not reply to the fact that Nonindicted 1 was mistakenly known that he was a permanent resident of the United States, and that there is no reason to leave the possibility to enforce the statement by responding to the fact that Nonindicted 1 could not speak, and that Nonindicted 1 was found to have acquired or held the permanent residence of the United States, as seen earlier, the statement by Nonindicted 7 is not reliable.

E) Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 3 have not received information from Non-Indicted 2, and all of the confirmed contents until that time have not been confirmed only based on Non-Indicted 2’s Twitter’s writing, and even if Non-Indicted 8 did not hear a clear answer, the answer questions were made, including the expression “the multiple testimony that was proposed”, “Non-Indicted 1’s speech is included in Non-Indicted 1’s journal and journalist.” Nevertheless, the Defendant did not confirm whether there was a number of testimony, whether Non-Indicted 1’s journal and journalist were “non-Indicted 1’s permanent residence right”, or not instructed Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 3 to confirm it.

F) On May 26, 2014, the Defendant posted a written reply demanding Nonindicted 1 to “to acquire and present specific objective explanatory materials,” but the method presented by the Defendant was difficult to secure within a short period of time (it is difficult for Nonindicted 1 to secure the method of presentation by the Defendant (it is difficult for the Defendant to know the fact that Nonindicted 1 was kept without dumping the past passport whose validity period expires, and is to be attached as supporting materials at the time of accusation, but it was not possible for the Defendant to know such fact). This is unjust because it is a demand for objective explanatory materials from Nonindicted 1 claiming that he has no

5. As to the assertion that the defendant did not have an intention to prevent the election of the non-indicted 1

A. Relevant legal principles

The purpose of preventing a candidate from being elected is to make an accurate judgment by publishing false facts about the candidate and thereby to make the candidate not obtain a majority of the valid votes (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2817, Jun. 29, 2007). It is sufficient to have the awareness that the candidate does not intend or wish to actively refrain from being elected and simply prevents from being elected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3598, Jul. 27, 2007). On the other hand, whether the purpose was for such purpose should be determined reasonably in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the social status of the defendant, the personal relationship between the defendant and the candidate or the candidate for competition, the motive, method and method of publication, the details and method of such publication, the nature and scope of the other party's act, and the social situation at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4275, May 25, 2006).

B. Determination

If the above legal principles are added to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, it is evident that at the time of each crime in the judgment, the defendant had the awareness that at least the non-indicted 1 candidate was unable to be elected by publication of false facts, so it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the purpose of preventing him from being elected

1) The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 were competing candidates, and at the time of committing the crime of Paragraph 1 of the holding, the Defendant’s support rate was approximately 10% and was disadvantageous to the Defendant, while Nonindicted Party 1’s support rate was higher than 20% and was favorable to Nonindicted Party 1. In addition, at the time of committing the crime of Paragraph 1 of the holding, the prior election day was five days and the remaining ten days after the election day was 10 days.

2) The Defendant, as described in the above Paragraph 4, committed a crime under Paragraph 1 without undergoing any specific verification procedure without presenting any supporting materials to accept the existence of the suspected fact publicly announced as described in the above Paragraph 4. After that, Non-Indicted 1’s order, the Defendant committed a crime under Paragraph 2 of the Decision on the Grounds of the Currency between Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 1, which was confirmed immediately before the crime under Paragraph 1, without undergoing any specific verification procedure.

3) The Defendant himself made a statement in this court that it was an important issue as to whether Non-Indicted 1 is a permanent resident of the United States. In addition, in the written opinion of the reporters as stated in Paragraph 1 of the ruling, the Defendant stated that “Non-Indicted 1 is ineligible to be a candidate for the Seoul Superintendent of the Office of Education if the facts are true,” and among the crimes described in Paragraph 2 of the ruling, the Defendant demanded Non-Indicted 1’s assertion that Non-Indicted 1 is not a permanent resident of the United States, despite Non-Indicted 1’s explanation, to present objective materials that may not be secured within a short time and at the radio broadcast interview to the effect that “this suspicion is not a negative figure.” Accordingly, if Non-Indicted 1 is believed to be a permanent resident of the United States by publication of the Defendant’s false information, the Defendant appears to have been aware that Non-Indicted 1 might fall.

1. Scope of applicable sentences by law: 5 million won to 45 million won; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] The publication of false facts in the election crime group â……………………· the publication of false facts for the purpose of falling on the election (type 3)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where false facts are related to matters of very important judgment of the electorate about the candidate's evaluation, where the other party is considerably many or highly spreading.

[Scope of Recommendation] From one year to four years, and six months (if there are three special persons, the maximum punishment shall be aggravated by 1/2)

3. Determination of sentence;

The fairness of election is the starting point of democracy and the basis of social order, and any act that harms or risks it shall be subject to punishment corresponding thereto, as it makes the fundamental foundation of society unstable. There still remains attempts to distort the choice of electors by false information in our election culture, and such fraudulent and unfolded in the nationwide and provincial elections. The crime of publishing false facts for the purpose of defeat under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act is a provision to ensure the fairness of election by regulating the act of publishing false facts unfavorable to candidates as part of the campaign interfering with election, thereby affecting the correct judgment of electors. The statutory penalty is imprisonment for not more than seven years or a fine not less than 5 million won but not more than 30 million won.

In the instant case, the Defendant made a statement on Nonindicted 2’s Twitter, which is mere mere simple suspicion without any confirmation as to the contents of Nonindicted 2’s Twitter, as indicated in the judgment, without any specific confirmation, and sent or made another statement again as described in paragraph 2 of the judgment, despite Nonindicted 1’s order. At the time of speaking as indicated in paragraph 1 of the judgment, although Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant did not have any suspicion, the Defendant first raised a suspicion, and led to a mutual accusation. Moreover, as to whether the Defendant published false facts, whether Nonindicted 1, the superintendent of education held a permanent residence right in the U.S., and it was difficult for Nonindicted 1 to easily express such facts if he did not possess a previous passport, and in light of the circumstances that Nonindicted 1 did not have any specific motive for the Defendant to appear in the National Assembly or to punish the Defendant, the Defendant was still subject to considerable punishment on the election day.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment against the Defendant. Although the Defendant had a bad influence on Nonindicted 1’s support rate, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 1 died due to the instant crime. In addition, when examining the motive for the instant crime, the Defendant’s possession of the permanent sovereignty of the candidate of the Superintendent of the Office of Education requires Nonindicted 1, the other party candidate, to present objective explanatory materials in the election process, on the ground that it is necessary to verify the eligibility of the candidate’s permanent sovereignty in the election process, in the election process without undergoing the hearing procedure due to public matters.

In addition, all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc. of the defendant, shall be comprehensively taken into account, but the sentence of the prosecution (7 million won) and the defendant shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the above favorable circumstances.

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

○ "guilty of only seven jurors"

2. Opinions on sentencing

○ Fines 5 million won: Six jurors

○ Fines 3 million won: One juror.

[Attachment]

Judges Dak-si (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) On May 26, 2014, Nonindicted Party 2 published the Twitter stating, “If only Nonindicted Party 1’s thickness is clearly presented, i.e., the intention to raise a question, i., the intention to do.e., if it is presented with relevant documentary evidence.” On May 27, 2014, Nonindicted Party 2 published a letter on the Twitter stating, “I seem to dismiss the suspicion of holding the sovereignty of Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate by submitting the documents for Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate. There was no need to speak only on the basis of the part of raising suspicion.”