[1] In a case where posting of a document using an information and communications network is permitted pursuant to Article 82-4(1) of the Public Official Election Act, if the contents of the notice violate the restriction under Article 82-4(2) of the same Act, whether the prohibition of distributing, posting, etc. of documents and drawings by unlawful means under Article 93(1) of the same Act applies (negative)

[2] In a case where a person opposing a specific political party up to the election campaign period of the national Dong-si local government election puts up a pllerist with a content of opposing the candidate belonging to the relevant political party on the Internet website and personal tables, the case holding that the contents of the above posters do not constitute the elements of Article 255 (2) 5 and Article 93 (1) of the Public Official Election Act at least without any need to examine whether the contents of the posters spread false facts about the said candidate or slanders by disclosing facts

[1] Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act prohibits “an act of distributing or posting, etc.” documents, etc. that may affect an election in a way that does not comply with the provisions of the Act. Since it is apparent in the interpretation that the said provision does not regulate the contents of expression such as documents, etc., if the act of posting documents by means of information and communications networks is permitted pursuant to Article 82-4(1) of the same Act, it is so that Article 93(1) of the same Act constitutes “an act of posting documents by means of information and communications networks” under Article 93(1) of the same Act, regardless of whether the contents posted violate the restrictions under Article 82-4(2) of the same Act, the prohibition provisions such as the distribution or posting, etc. of documents

[2] In a case where a person opposing a specific political party up to the election campaign period of the national Dong-si local government election posts a paroster with a content of opposing the candidate belonging to the relevant political party on the Internet website and personal tables, the case holding that the contents of the above posters do not constitute the elements of Article 255 (2) 5 and Article 93 (1) of the Public Official Election Act at least without any need to examine whether the contents of the posters spread false facts about the above candidate or slanders by disclosing facts

[1] Articles 82-4(1) and (2), 93(1), and 255(2)5 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Articles 82-4(1) and (2), 93(1), and 255(2)5 of the Public Official Election Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do3097 delivered on December 12, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 328)

Defendant

Right to life;

Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Kim Jong-soo

The defendant is innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

이 사건 공소사실의 요지는, “피고인이 2006. 5. 31. 실시되는 제4회 전국동시지방선거와 관련하여 서울시장 선거의 한나라당 오세훈 후보를 비롯하여 한나라당 후보가 대거 당선될 것으로 예상되자 이를 막기 위하여 한나라당 및 위 오세훈 후보를 반대하는 내용을 포스터 형식으로 패러디한 것을 인터넷에 널리 게시하기로 마음먹고, 누구든지 선거일 전 180일부터 선거일까지 선거에 영향을 미치게 하기 위하여 공직선거법의 규정에 의하지 아니하고는 정당 또는 후보자를 지지·추천하거나 반대하는 내용이 포함되어 있거나 정당의 명칭 또는 후보자의 성명을 나타내는 광고, 인사장, 벽보, 사진, 문서·도화, 인쇄물이나 녹음·녹화테이프 기타 이와 유사한 것을 배부·첩부·살포·상영 또는 게시할 수 없음에도, 2006. 5. 25.경 서울 성동구 행당동에 있는 한양대학교병원 입구 부근의 지하 1층에 위치한 리텟피씨방에서, 피고인 명의로 개설한 인터넷 사이트 수구가라(www.sugugara.net)의 ‘패러디놀이터게시판’에 ‘테러의 배후는?? 칼풍’이라는 제목으로 박근혜 한나라당 대표의 피습사건 사진과 함께 ‘테러는 상대방을 주범으로 몰아 곤경에 빠뜨리고 동정심을 자극하여 자기세력을 확대하고 공천비리, 성추행, 서민공방 등 불리한 조건을 한 번에 무마시킬 수 있는 강력한 신종정치공작’, ‘안풍으로 돈을 풀고 북풍으로 위기를 조장하던 때는 갔다’, ‘엄청난 배후가 있는 신종정치공작 칼풍’이라는 내용으로 한나라당을 반대하는 포스터를 게시하고, ‘행복한 오세훈’이라는 제목으로 ‘차떼기, 공천비리, 성추행 모두 잊게 해주시는 대표님!! 우리 구호 한 번 외치죠 근혜 대표님 고맙습니다’라는 내용으로 서울시장 한나라당후보 오세훈을 반대하는 포스터를 인터넷 사이트 네이버의 불특정 개인블로그 ‘http//blog.naver.com/ (이하 생략)’에 게시하는 등 별지 범죄일람표 1 내지 4 기재와 같이 36회에 걸쳐 인터넷 사이트 ‘수구가라(www.sugugara.net)’, ‘한겨레신문’(www.bbs2.hani.co.kr), 네이버 개인블로그 등에 한나라당 내지 위 오세훈을 반대하는 내용의 패러디 포스터를 게시하였다”는 것으로, 검사는 공직선거법 제255조 제2항 제5호 , 제93조 제1항 으로 피고인을 의율하고 있다.

2. Determination:

A. Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter “Act”) prohibits any person from distributing documents, etc. containing contents supporting, recommending, or opposing a political party or candidate in order to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day. However, it is exceptionally permitted to the “cases under the provisions of this Act”. However, Article 82-4(1) of the Act prohibits a person eligible for election campaign from publicly announcing documents, etc. using an information and communications network under Article 2(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. during the election campaign period, by posting or transmitting e-mails with information on election campaign on the Internet homepage or its bulletin board or telephone room, etc., and thus, it is questionable whether the act of publicly announcing documents containing contents supporting, recommending, or opposing a political party or candidate through an information and communications network, such as the Internet bulletin board during the election campaign period falls under Article 93(1)2 of the Act and thus, it does not constitute a violation of Article 93(2)4) of the Act.

B. We examine whether Article 82-4(2) of the Act is a provision that limits the contents of information to be posted on the Internet bulletin board, etc. through an election campaign permitted under Article 82-4(1) of the Act. It cannot be deemed that the provision that limits the methods of expression. In addition, with respect to acts of spreading false information or acts of not knowing candidates under Article 82-4(2) of the Act, the election commission may request the person who manages and operates the website on which the relevant information is posted to delete the pertinent information, or may request the manager and operator of the website or the provider of information and communications services who handles the transmitted information to refuse, suspend, or restrict such handling (Article 82(3) of the Act). Article 9 of the Act provides that the person who manages and operates the Internet web site or the provider of information and communications services who receives a request for the above provision shall comply with such request without delay (Article 82(4) of the Act provides that if he/she fails to comply with such provision, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years or a fine not exceeding 4 million won.

C. The facts charged of this case are as follows: on May 25, 2006, at the fourth nationwide election campaign period (from May 18, 2006 to May 30, 2006), the Defendant posted the so-called "Bara" list with the content that candidates, including the so-called "Nara" candidate, oppose the Hannaa" and the Orna" candidate, in order to prevent the election from being elected. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is not eligible for the election campaign, and in light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s act does not constitute the elements of Article 255(2)5 and Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, at least without examining whether the contents of the so-called "Bara" list posted by the Defendant were false or distorted about the candidates, such as the so-called "Mana" candidate, or slandered by the disclosure of facts.

D. If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Maximum Pung (Presiding Judge)