Do 2019 12468(a) Violation of Public Official Election Act

(b) Honorary damage;

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

legal entity (with limited liability) continental A State

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Lee Yong-hee in charge

Seoul High Court Decision 2019No 905 decided August 23, 2019

November 14, 2019

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. On the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the court below found that there was no proof of crime against the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the part of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts with the intent to escape from the election of the E-Gun, which told B of false facts among the facts charged in this case, and I and J, among the facts charged in this case, not guilty. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the reasoning of the original judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on "the purpose of preventing the election of the public official in violation of the duty to recognize or reduce the limits of free conviction by violating the legal rules of logic and experience without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in the judgment of the court below, and thereby failing to err by misapprehending the legal principles on "the purpose of preventing the election of the public official in violation of the Election Act".

The Prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the original court, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the statement of grounds for appeal as to the guilty portion.

2. On the grounds for Defendant’s appeal, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted Defendant I and J of the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the violation of honorary law due to publication of false facts for the purpose of falling short of the indictment in this case. Examining the grounds for the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on “public announcement” and “the purpose of preventing election” under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, by violating the logic and experience necessary for the judgment of the court below, or by misapprehending the legal principles on “the purpose of preventing election”.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Jong-hwan

Justices Park Sang-ok

Lee In-bok and Lee In-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee