2021Do1177 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Defendants

Law Firm Csan (for Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Li-kin and Lee Dong-hee

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant A)

Attorney Kim Jin, Kim Jin, Kim Noise, leap, Kim Jong-man

Law Firm Staff (for Defendant B)

Attorney Lee Han-ju, Ansan-ho, Lee Dong-ho and Dong-ho

Law Firm Sobio (for Defendant C)

Attorney Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2019No1530 Decided January 15, 2021

April 8, 2021

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants of the charges on the ground that Defendant C, who operated “Internet newspaper” or “K”, constitutes “a person who operates and manages broadcasting, newspapers, telecommunications, magazines, and other publications, or who edits, gathers materials, writes, or reports,” under Article 97(2) and (3) of the Public Official Election Act.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the concept of intentional establishment and question in a crime violating Article 97 of the Public Official Election Act, and by analogical interpretation and expanded interpretation contrary to the principle of no punishment without law, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Supreme Court Decision 2005Do836 Decided May 13, 2005 cited in the grounds of appeal, which cited in the grounds of appeal, is inappropriate

Defendant A’s assertion that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to compensatory relations under Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the lower court in the final appeal that the said Defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or that the lower court did not consider it as the subject of a judgment ex officio. Furthermore, even

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

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Lee Dong-won

Chief Justice Noh Tae-ok