[1] Whether Article 264 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts is unconstitutional (negative)

[2] Whether Article 230 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts is unconstitutional (negative)

[3] Whether Article 257 (1) 1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is unconstitutional (negative)

[1] According to Article 264 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice, the invalidation and invalidation of the election are determined in accordance with the result of the judgment, and even if the minor difference in the amount of the fine leads to the result of determining whether not only the invalidation and invalidation of the election but also a certain period of restriction on the right to hold a public office, this may be deemed a natural disadvantage for the elected person to violate the above Act. Thus, the above provision cannot be deemed to violate Article 11 of the Constitution providing the right to equality, Article 25 of the Constitution providing the right to hold a public office, and Article 114 of the Constitution stipulating the right to hold a public office.

[2] Article 230(1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election provides that a person who provides money or goods to a certain person, such as an elector, shall be punished for the purpose of getting elected or getting another person to be elected or not to be elected, and even if there is no certain time limit such as punishing the above act within a certain period from the election day, it does not violate the principle of no punishment without law under the Constitution, or violates the principle of legitimacy, method adequacy, minimum degree of damage, and principle of balance of legal interests.

[3] As to the types of acts not considered as a contribution act under Article 112(2) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act, subparagraph 1 through 5 of the same Article specifically stipulates the scope of delegation by stipulating that the act is a courtesy or official act as stipulated by the National Election Commission Regulations in subparagraph 6 of the same Article. Thus, Article 113 and Article 112(1)1 of the same Act, which punishs a violation of the above Article 257(1)1 of the same Act, is a blank Criminal Act, which violates the principle of no punishment without the law, or the principle of no punishment without the law, or violates the legitimacy, method, minimum damage, and balance of legal interests, and thus, it cannot be said that it infringes on the right to take public office and the right to participate in political affairs guaranteed by the Constitution and infringes on the other party's right to pursue happiness and the right to equality.

[1] Article 264 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, Articles 11, 25, and 114 of the Constitution / [2] Article 230 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, Articles 12 (1) and 37 (2) of the Constitution / [3] Articles 112, 113, and 257 (1) 1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, Articles 10, 11, 12 (1), and 37 (2) of the Constitution

[3] Supreme Court Decision 95Do2820 decided May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1937)

A

The request for adjudication on constitutionality is dismissed.

1. Article 264 of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter "Public Official Election Act") provides that the elected person shall lose his/her election when he/she is sentenced to imprisonment or a fine exceeding one million won on account of committing a crime prescribed by the above Act in the election in question, even if he/she was elected at a harsh election, the election shall be held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedure, and the election pursuant to the Constitution and the Local Autonomy Act shall be held fairly in accordance with the Constitution and the Local Autonomy Act, and shall contribute to the development of democratic administration by preventing any malpractice related to the election and contributing to the development of democratic administration. Accordingly, the decision is made in accordance with the above provision, and even if the decision on whether the elected person has a certain period of time, as well as the invalidation of the election, due to a minor difference in the amount of the fine, it can be deemed that the elected person is a natural disadvantage in violation of the above Act. Thus, if Article 111 (10) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 25 (14) of the Constitution of the Constitution provide that the right to equality should be held.

2. In order to guarantee the legitimate exercise of sovereignty or political right of the people, an election shall be guaranteed to the maximum free and fair, and in particular, distortion of the will of the people through the presidential election and the distort of the election climate caused thereby need to be thoroughly obstructed. Among them, the purchase and inducement by interest as provided by Article 230 of the Public Official Election Act is the most poor crime that substantially undermines the fairness of the election, and there is a need to punish a person who offers money or goods to a certain person, such as the elector, for the purpose of ensuring the fair election, or preventing the election from being elected or getting another person or getting another person to do so, and even if there is no certain time limit such as punishing the above acts within a certain period from the election day, it does not violate the principle of no punishment without the law under the Constitution or the principle of legitimacy, method adequacy, minimum principle of damage, principle of balance of legal interests, etc. in the degree of restriction of fundamental rights due to penal laws.

3. Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act provides that "a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) and his/her spouse shall not conduct any act of contribution, regardless of whether it is related to the election in question or not during the period of restriction on the act of contribution." Article 112 of the above Act provides that "11 of the act corresponding to the act of contribution" shall be as to the 11 type of act, and Paragraph (2) of the above Article provides that "an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs 1 through 5 shall be as courtesy or official act with regard to the types of act not deemed the act of contribution, and the specific act falling under subparagraphs 1 through 5 shall be deemed as an act of courtesy or official duty, and Article 50 of the Rules on the Management of Public Official Election according to delegation of the above Act provides that "an act of not deeming as a contribution," and Article 112 (2) 6 of the above Act provides that "an act of not deeming it as a formal act or an act of not infringing on the right and interest of a candidate under Article 115 (2) of the above Act.

4. The applicant’s assertion is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)