logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.11.29 2013노2791
공직선거법위반
Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The printed matters distributed by the Defendants of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not contain any content supporting, recommending, or opposing a specific political party or candidate.

Defendants’ act was conducted on the line of extension of ordinary activities committed by “D organization (hereinafter “D organization”) as an organization to which they belong, and there was no intention or intention to influence the election.

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the printed materials distributed by the Defendants related to the contents of the printed materials are highly likely to have a reason to extract the President who supports the anti-value registration money under the title of “the President who is the President of the anti-value registration fee,” and the phrase “the President of the anti-value registration fee” is stated as our hand that it is necessary for us.

In addition, compared to F, I, and J candidates, I, J candidates and their affiliated political parties have proposed the anti-value registration fee bill or agreed to pass the bill, while F candidates and E are described as candidates inappropriate for the anti-value registration fee to meet the above conditions, such as refusing to pass the bill.

According to 10 pages of evidence records, the above printed materials contain contents supporting or opposing a specific candidate by explicitly expressing the relationship between a specific political party or candidate and a specific policy, and they also constitute the name of a political party or the printed materials indicating the name of a candidate.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Articles 93(1) and 103(3) of the Public Official Election Act relating to the Shesheetive factors restrict the acts set forth therein on the premise that “to influence the election”.

arrow