[1] The meaning of "regular academic background recognized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act" under Article 64 (1) of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Illegal Act

[2] The case holding that the act of sending promotional materials containing such history constitutes a publication of false facts as provided in the former Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act on the grounds that the defendant's completed "the highest manager process of the small and medium enterprise at the graduate school of social development at the National University" cannot be deemed as a regular academic background

[3] The purport of Article 16 of the Criminal Act concerning the mistake of law

[4] The scope of persons eligible for allowances and actual expenses under Article 135 (1) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

[5] Whether an act of offering money, goods, or profits exceeding the allowances and actual expenses prescribed in the former Rules on the Management of Public Officials Election in connection with an election campaign to an election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, election campaign worker, or accountant in charge, who has reported to the competent election commission, violates Article 135 (3) of the former Election of

[1] Articles 64 (1) and 250 (1) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005) / [2] Articles 64 (1) and 250 (1) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005) / [3] Article 16 of the Criminal Act / [4] Article 135 (1) and (3) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005 and by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005) / [5] Article 135 (1) and (4) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 1584 of Aug. 14, 201 of Public Official Election Act)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do1568 delivered on September 17, 1999, Supreme Court Decision 99Do1568 delivered on November 30, 2000 (HunGong51, 820) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1696 Delivered on January 25, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 621), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1792 Delivered on July 11, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592 Delivered on September 29, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1744) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do16574 delivered on July 25, 2005

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Cho Jong-sil

Seoul High Court Decision 2005No436 delivered on August 11, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The term "regular academic background recognized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act" under Article 64 (1) of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Election Illegal Act (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005 and the name of the law is changed to the Public Official Election Act; hereinafter "former Public Official Election Act") means only the academic background on the school education system that strictly manages and controls the kinds, establishment, management, teachers, curriculum, academic achievement evaluation, ability certification, etc. of schools under each of the above Acts (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 99Hun-Ba95, Nov. 30, 200). As such, each of the above Acts and its Enforcement Decree does not belong to the research course conducted by a graduate school which is not strictly managed and controlled with regard to the relevant qualifications for admission, the number of subjects, the term of school years, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do238, Apr. 23, 199; 9Do165.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's "the highest manager process of small and medium enterprises at the Central University Social Development Graduate School", which the defendant completed, cannot be deemed to constitute a regular academic background under the Higher Education Act, and the defendant's act of sending such history to each household by entering it in the promotional materials of preliminary candidates constitutes a publication of false facts under Article 250 (1) of the former Public Official Election Act, and there is no error of law

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple site of law, but it means that an act of misunderstanding is generally a crime, but it is generally accepted that it does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes, and if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding of misunderstanding, it shall not be punishable (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1792, Jul. 11, 2003).

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on the ground that the reason that the defendant used the same promotional material as the promotional material of this case in the past local election but was not punished, or that the promotional material of this case was not aware that it was in violation of the former Public Official Election Act, or that there was no criminal intent to commit an act of the defendant, or that there was "justifiable cause" that constitutes a mistake in law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, and there is no error of law such

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

Article 135(1) of the former Public Official Election Act provides that "An allowance and actual expenses may be paid to an election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, election campaign worker, or accountant in charge," but Article 63(1) of the same Act provides that "when a political party, candidate, preliminary candidate, election campaign manager, or chief of the election campaign liaison office appoints or dismisses the election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, or election campaign worker, he/she shall report in writing to the election campaign commission without delay." Article 123(1) of the same Act provides that "a political party or candidate shall appoint one person in charge of accounting from among those who are eligible to engage in the election campaign at the time prescribed in any of the following subparagraphs and shall report his/her name and resident registration number to the relevant election campaign commission in writing." Article 135(1) of the same Act provides that "The amount of allowances and actual expenses to be paid to the election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, election campaign worker, accountant in charge, and accountant in charge, who are limited to the amount reported to the election campaign.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below is just in finding that the defendant provided each money and valuables to the non-indicted 1 and non-indicted 2 who are not the election campaign workers reported to the competent election commission in connection with the election campaign and provided each money and valuables exceeding the statutory allowances and actual expenses to the non-indicted 3 and non-indicted 4 who are the election campaign workers, who are the election campaign workers, who are the election campaign workers reported to the competent election commission. The above acts of the defendant are all acts of the defendant in violation of Article 135 (3) of the Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (Article 135 (3) of the Election of Public Officials and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 7189 of March 12, 2004), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provision of money and valuables under the former

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)