[1] The purpose of prohibiting establishment, etc. of similar organizations under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and the standard for determining whether any institution, etc. violates the above prohibition provision

[2] Whether "election campaign", which is the purpose of its establishment, should be an election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act in order to constitute a similar institution under Article 89 (1) of the Public Official Election Act (negative)

[1] Article 61(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act strictly limits the subject of the establishment of an election campaign office and election campaign liaison office, which are an election campaign organization, to political parties or candidates, and strictly regulates the number of establishment, place, etc., and Article 89(1) of the same Act prohibits anyone from establishing, establishing, or using a similar institution on behalf of a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate, other than the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office established under the above provision. This legislative purpose is to maintain fairness in the election campaign organization among candidates, and to prevent excessive competition and waste due to the difficult establishment of various forms of election campaign organizations. As such, whether an institution, organization, or facility violates the above prohibition provision is established for the purpose of election campaign, and thus, constitutes an act or act similar to the legitimate election campaign office or election campaign liaison office. In this context, the election campaign refers to an act that may directly or indirectly affect a specific candidate in connection with an election, and thus, is not a purely similar institution established for an election campaign.

[2] If any institution, organization, organization, or facility was established for the purpose of "election campaign" and it was used as a "election campaign office or election liaison office", it shall be a similar organization under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and the "election campaign" shall not necessarily be permitted under the Public Official Election Act.

[1] Articles 61(1) and (2), 89(1), and 255(1)13 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Articles 89(1) and 255(1)13 of the Public Official Election Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Do2249 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 468) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7511 Delivered on January 27, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 376)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Hong Jin-jin

Seoul High Court Decision 2013No2038 decided August 30, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Article 61(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act strictly limits the subject of the establishment of an election campaign office and election campaign liaison office, which are an election campaign organization, to political parties or candidates, and strictly regulates the number of establishment, place, etc., and Article 89(1) of the same Act prohibits anyone from establishing, establishing, or using a similar institution on behalf of a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate, other than an election campaign office or election campaign liaison office established under the above provisions. This legislative purpose is to maintain fairness in election campaign organizations among candidates, and to prevent excessive competition and waste due to difficult establishment of various forms of election campaign organizations. Thus, whether any institution, organization, or facility violates the above prohibition provision is established for the purpose of election campaign, and is determined by whether it constitutes an act or function similar to a legitimate election campaign office or election campaign liaison office. In this context, the term “election campaign” means an act that may directly or indirectly affect a certain candidate in connection with a specific election, which is not a purely similar institution established for election campaign (see Supreme Court Decision 297Do29797, etc.).

In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined to the effect that the main purpose of the office established by the Defendant constitutes an institution, organization, organization, or facility similar to an election campaign office prohibiting establishment, installation, and use under the Public Official Election Act, on the grounds that it is reasonable to view that the main purpose of the office was to affect the electors beyond the range of the election campaign for a specific candidate, that is, the internal election campaign for a specific candidate.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to similar agencies under the Public Official Election Act, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that, following the Constitutional Court en banc Order 2007Hun-Ma1001 Decided December 29, 201 and the subsequent revision of the Public Official Election Act, △△△△ Office established for the purpose of conducting an election campaign using information and communications networks, such as Twitter, is not a similar organization. However, if any institution, organization, organization, or facility was established for the purpose of election campaign and it was used as a “election campaign” and it was used as a “election campaign office or election liaison office,” it is not always a similar organization as provided in Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act. In full view of the circumstances recognized by the lower court, the Defendant’s office established by the Defendant is deemed to have its main purpose of establishment, and it seems that the office was actually used as an election campaign office or election liaison office. Accordingly, even if the Defendant’s act of supporting a specific candidate, the lower court’s establishment of an election campaign office and its similar office are sufficiently acknowledged as prohibited under the Public Official Election Act.

C. The court below determined that the above decision of the Constitutional Court asserted by the defendant does not directly apply to the establishment of a similar agency at issue in this case, and even if the defendant mispers the above fact that the establishment of a △△△ office was legally permissible, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, this part of the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal by the defendant. Furthermore, as long as the court below's decision that △△ office appears to have been established and used for election campaign purposes is justifiable, the defendant's assertion in the grounds for appeal against this part of the judgment of the court below cannot be accepted on the premise that the act related to the election campaign at

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the office of △△△△ is established mainly for the purpose of election campaign and seven persons such as the non-indicted, etc. seem to be a kind of employee employed to assist the defendant and conduct election campaign, and therefore, it is difficult to view the defendant as having 7 persons such as the non-indicted, etc. engage in election campaign. In this regard, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)