logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.15 2016노2964
공직선거법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the case of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that there was a purpose of election campaign or having an influence on election, in light of the relationship between the defendant and the candidate, motive and background of the act, means and method, contents and manner of the act, and circumstances at the time

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

In light of the fact that the “election for public office” and the “party competition” are clearly distinguishable from each other under the Public Official Election Act claiming the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the competition campaign against the general voters who are not party members during the “party competition” are also permitted, the Defendant’s act is for the primary purpose of election in the “party election for public office” as an incidental act to the “party election for public office” and the “party election for public office” and does not readily conclude that such act constitutes an election campaign (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12172, May 9, 2013). However, the lower court’s reasoning that the lower court duly adopted and investigated evidence revealed by the evidence, namely, comprehensively taking account of all the following: the time when the Defendant sent text messages to the lower court; the status of the “party” as indicated in the above text messages; the degree of the possibility of winning the party’s intraparty election; the Defendant’s party name and other competition circumstances, etc., the Defendant’s act was aimed at the “party election”.

It is reasonable to view that this is only an incidental.

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes an “election campaign” or constitutes an act to influence the “election”.

arrow