logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.03.13 2013도12507
공직선거법위반
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The filing of suspicions as to the misapprehension of legal principles as to false facts, misconception of facts, and assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, shall be permitted only when it is for the verification of eligibility as a public official and there is a reasonable ground to believe that such suspicion is true. If there is a reasonable ground, it shall not be punishable to guarantee freedom of expression after the fact, even if it is found that the suspicion is not true.

In addition, in the crime of publishing false facts, a person who actively asserts that there is no suspicion against a person who asserts that there is no suspicion against him/her, bears the burden of presenting supporting materials that can be acceptable to the existence of such a fact, and the prosecutor may prove the falsity by impeachmenting the credibility of the materials presented.

In this case, it is not sufficient to simply present a written answer in light of the above legal principles. At least, the prosecutor's act of proving falseness shall be equipped with the existence of existence to the extent that the prosecutor's act of proving falseness is practically feasible, and when there is no presentation of such written explanation or the credibility of the presented explanation is impeachment,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11847 Decided December 22, 2011, etc.). Meanwhile, in the crime of publishing false information under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, it is necessary to recognize that the disclosure is false as the content of the actor’s intentional act. The existence of such subjective perception is based on the Defendant’s academic background, career, social status, and publication, as long as it is difficult to know or prove it outside due to its nature, based on the content and form of publication, the existence and content of materials, and the source and awareness of the fact the Defendant reveals.

arrow