2018Gohap266, 267(Joint), abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights, and violation of the Public Official Election Act

이AA (6*년생), ▨▨도지사

Modern, Sick State (prosecution, public trial), Lee Jae-ho, and Kim Jae-hwan (public trial)

Law Firm LBnBS Partners

Attorney Kim Jong-hee, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Jin, Lee Jin-chul, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Dong-hee

Law Firm Sovik

Attorney Yellow-gu, Counsel Lee Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

May 16, 2019

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Determination on the charges of abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights

A. Summary of the facts charged

【Basic Facts】

1) Status of Defendant, MaBB, and relationship with the public health center in Do, △△ City, and the mental health center in △△ City

The Defendant, around June 2, 2010, won the 5th local election of Dong-dong local government, and was in the 5th local election from July 2010 to June 2014, and was in the 5th local election of Do-dong local government, and was in the 5th local election of Do-dong local government. The Defendant was in the position to exercise influence over his duties by exercising direct or indirect authority over the public officials under his jurisdiction by exercising the authority to appoint, temporarily suspend, dismiss, and take disciplinary action against public officials under his jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Local Public Officials Act.

윤BB은 1980. 8. 31.경 ▨▨도 지방공무원 공채 9급 시험에 합격한 후 1980. 11. 21.경부터 ◇◇시청에서 근무를 하였으며, 2009. 3. 13.경 지방행정사무관으로 승진한 후 2011. 5. 1.경부터 2013. 4. 30.경까지 ◇◇시장의 직무를 보좌하는 지방행정공무원인 ◇◇시장 비서실장으로 재직하였다.

According to the Ordinance on the Establishment of Administrative Organizations (amended by Ordinance No. 2732, Aug. 2, 2013), the head of the Gu of Do, Do, the head of Gu, the head of Gu, the head of Gu, the head of Gu, the head of Gu, the head of which shall exercise overall control over the affairs under his/her jurisdiction

On January 1, 2012, 2012, the mental health center in △△ City (hereinafter referred to as the "Center") shall be operated by the Seoul Metropolitan City Hospital in the Seoul Metropolitan City through a private consignment contract between △△ and the Seoul Metropolitan City Hospital in Do, and shall be directed and supervised by the head of the public health center in Do, and the head of the center shall be a mental health specialist belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan City in the department of mental health, such as the promotion of mental health, the prevention of suicide, and the management of mental health, and shall exercise overall control

Therefore, the Defendant, △△ City, in accordance with the Local Public Officials Act, was in a position to direct and supervise public officials belonging to the public health centers of the Do and the public health centers of the Do in Do in accordance with the Local Public Officials Act and to exercise the authority related to duties directly or indirectly for specific matters. The head of the center and the employees of the center were in a position to exercise the influence related to duties through the public health center of the Do in Do in which the center is directed and supervised, and the leB, the head of the △△ City

2) The Defendant’s background leading up to having had the mental hospital hospitalized in thisCC, and the change of the entrusted institution of the mental health center entrusted to △△ City.

around November 2005, the Defendant-friendly LCC (Death around 2017) contacted DoD with DoD to borrow 50 million won, where DoD was in custody as old funds, but 50 million won was kept in custody, not mother. Although this fact was found to have been known, the Defendant did not answer, but transferred 50 million won to DoD, this CC was deemed to have neglected the Defendant’s action, and this CC did not appear to have a friendly relationship with DoD, and it was very likely that Dod Dod Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g s.

In order to criticize the fact that the Defendant was expected to take the lead of the citizen movement in the past △△ City around August 2010 after the Defendant was appointed as the △△ City, thisCC criticizes the △△ City at the time of taking the market before the beginning of the market, and posts a statement to the effect that the Defendant, who was engaged in pure citizen movement for the development of △△ City, tried to give advice directly to the Defendant, but it was difficult for the Defendant to give advice to the effect that the Defendant, who was taking the lead of the citizen movement in the past, appeared to have seen to have been political person's behavior, and, in order to criticize this, △△△ City's Internet homepage "in order to criticize △△ City," it was difficult for the Defendant to take the role of the Defendant's political person who was subject to the Defendant's taking the position of △△ City, and that the Defendant was going to play the political person's behavior like that of △△ City.

The Defendant, when thisCC’s action is faced with the above position due to thisCC’s action, and if thisCC continued to publish the above criticism, he thought that it would interfere with its correction operation, using the market authority to use the authority to think that it would interfere with its correction operation. On November 201, 2010, the Defendant called E to △△△ Mental Hospital (the entrusted operation of the Center from around 1999 to December 31, 201) which was entrusted to the Center by △△△△ Hospital (the entrusted operation of the Center from around 1999 to December 31, 201) which was operated by △△△△ City, who was entrusted with the Center by △△△ City, called △△, “thisCC has made a personnel solicitation while making a market operation, and directed the public official as if he were the market.” This means that this is more likely to immediately hospitalization in the hospital. The Defendant refused this face-to-face diagnosis by the Defendant.”

After December 31, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract to entrust the operation of the △△ Mental Hospital Center to a private sector with the operation institution of the △△ Hospital as of January 1, 2012, which was the expiration date of the entrusted operation period of the △△ Mental Hospital, and the headF, a psychiatrist of the mental health department belonging to the △△△ Hospital, was appointed as the head of the Center.

3) The procedure of hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act

Except in cases of emergency hospitalization, a doctor's diagnosis and diagnosis shall face with a patient, and a person shall not hospitalize or extend the hospitalization of a mentally ill person to a mental medical institution, etc. without a mental health specialist's diagnosis, and when a mentally ill person is hospitalized with a mental health specialist pursuant to Articles 23 through 26 of the former Mental Health Act (amended by Act No. 11998, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter "former Mental Health Act"), a doctor's diagnosis refers to a "face-to-face diagnosis." A psychiatrist takes a method of estimatinging psychological experience on the basis of not only the verbal report of the patient during the diagnosis process, but also the behavior or attitude revealed in the outer area. An interview for the purpose of diagnosis finds symptoms of symptoms through listening to the medical history, and investigate the time, condition, and factors affecting the occurrence, and formulate an additional examination or treatment plan.

In addition, a mental health specialist or a mental health specialist, who discovers a person suspected of having a risk of undermining himself or other persons due to mental illness, may apply to the Mayor, etc. for the diagnosis and protection of the person concerned, and the market, etc. in receipt of the above application shall immediately request a psychiatrist to diagnose the person suspected as the psychopath concerned. In case where, as a result of the diagnosis by a mental health specialist, the person suspected as the psychopath concerned is at the risk of undermining himself or other persons, and where it is deemed necessary to conduct accurate diagnosis of the symptoms, the Mayor, etc. shall make an application for voluntary hospitalization or request the person responsible for protection to give consent of hospitalization, and if the person fails to comply with such request, the State or public mental medical institution or general hospital may

On the other hand, in the case of hospitalization under Article 25 (3) of the former Mental Health Act without face-to-face diagnosis by a medical specialist, it is acknowledged that the person suspected as a mentally ill person as a result of a face-to-face diagnosis by a medical specialist is in danger of undermining himself/herself or others, and the market, etc. is able to allow him/her to be hospitalized for a fixed period of not more than two weeks under the above provision only when he/she does not comply with the request for hospitalization by a medical specialist and the person responsible for protection.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 22, 2012, thisCC repeatedly filed a civil petition, such as the Defendant’s criticism of the market qualification of 46 cases from the end of March of the same year to the end of the same year, on the bulletin board of △△△ City, stating that the Defendant’s correction operation does not comply with the democratic basis in relation to the fact that △△ City pressured the community conference in relation to the compilation of the budget of the Saemaul Council of △△ City and requested the community conference to report the prior assembly in order to pass through the community budget of the Saemaul Council. In order to criticize this, thisCC repeatedly filed a civil petition, on the grounds that the Defendant’s request for corrective operation does not comply with the basic principles of democracy.

The Defendant, due to the above acts of thisCC, had a good question about viewing public officials and the Defendant’s family members to be discharged from the military service, and the Defendant had a view to admitting thisCC to be hospitalized into a mental hospital by considering that it would interfere with the correction and operation of the Defendant’s family members if thisCC continued to publish the above criticism.

On the other hand, thisCC obtained qualification as a certified public accountant around 1986, and worked in ○○ Investment Trust for about three years from around 1990. From around 193 to around 2017, it operated thisCC-free accounting office in △△dong, △△△, △△△, △△, and its accounting office began to increase profits by continuously raising approximately KRW 2,5810,000 to around 193, and around 2012, it did not receive approximately KRW 141,00,000 from around 199, and around 194, at around 200, the Defendant participated in △△△ Civil Association with the Defendant as a promoter of △△△ Provincial Association and did not have been able to take part in this case’s mental illness and to have been able to take part in this case’s mental illness before 20,000, and there was no significant change in the accounting records from around 10,013.

In addition, in order to hospitalizeCC pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, it is difficult to deem that there was a risk of harm to himself/herself or others due to mental illness. However, thisCC did not have any record of diagnosis or treatment due to mental illness. According to the civil petition behavior of thisCC or the content posted on the bulletin board, it is difficult to say that there was a risk of harm to himself/herself or others by repeatedly filing a civil petition by thisCC. ② “finding” of a psychiatrist or a mental health specialist as provided for in Article 25(1) of the former Mental Health Act means that a mental health specialist or a mental health specialist did not directly interview the patient and observe the patient’s behavior for a certain period without a mental health doctor or a mental health specialist’s consent to hospitalization at the time of his/her request.

In full view of the above circumstances, thisCC was unable to be hospitalized pursuant to Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act in light of the status of thisCC at the time of this case, family relations, occupation, etc., the procedure of hospitalization of the center under the former Mental Health Act, diagnosis and practice of the center for protection application, etc. However, the Defendant, using a position in the △△ market, used a center, etc. under which he/she is directed and supervised by the head of the above public health center through the head of the public health center in Gun/Gu, which he/she directs and supervised.

From May 1, 201, 201, PapB served as the head of △△ City office who assists the Defendant in the duties of the Defendant, △△△ City, assisting the Defendant in exchanges with the Defendant’s family members, etc., maintained a very closely-friendly relationship with the Defendant, such as having the Defendant listened to the Defendant’s past family members by several times from the Defendant. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant repeatedly filed a civil petition with the Defendant to △△△△△△△, posted a notice that criticizes the Defendant’s status of the Defendant’s △△△ City on the bulletin board of △△△△△△△○ City, which led the Defendant’s family members to spread to the entire area of △△△△△△△ City, and the Defendant was also aware of the fact, and the Defendant was also aware of the position of the Defendant’s family members, and the Defendant was able to join this △△△ City with the public health clinic in order to prevent the Defendant from being hospitalized in the public health clinic of △△ City.

(i) Preparation of modifications to the assessment of the FF EF with mental health specialists, as well as modification thereof;

On March 2012, the Defendant: (a) had thisCC prepare a written statement to the head of Cheong-gu, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, in order to create the circumstance that “Is doubt that there is a risk of undermining himself/herself or others due to a mental disease” as stipulated in Article 25(1) of the former Mental Health Act; (b) had the head of Y-gu, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and the head of △△△, “Is itself repeatedly file a malicious civil petition; and have a mental problem in light of the behavior,” and (c) had the public official of △△△, “Is the process of hospitalization pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act,” and (d) had the public official of △△△, who was hospitalized in accordance with the foregoing direction, drafted a written statement to the effect that “Isk-gu, △△△, who was hospitalized on the Internet homepage of this case, to the extent that the said public official’s mental problem can be transmitted.” (hereinafter the same).

Therefore, after examining documents and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to thisCC issued by the above HaB around that time, the former H revealed the following basic facts C. The Defendant’s presentation of materials, such as related Acts and subordinate statutes, by deeming that thisCC could not be hospitalized under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act on the grounds of the same reasons as the content of the statement. In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that thisCC’s content stated in the case alone is doubtful to the effect that “this is not a danger of harm to itself or others due to mental illness.” In addition, this CC’s report to the purport that it would not be a cause of hospitalization by the market, etc. due to its guardian’s absence of face-to-face diagnosis, and thus, the Defendant ordered the former H to the effect that it would be difficult to obtain advice from the Head of the Seocho Police Center, who is the head of the early Police Center, and that it would not be possible for the Defendant to receive the aforementioned diagnosis and family members’ consent from the latter.”

Accordingly, the above head of the Gu HF demanded the Head of the Gu HF to submit documents under the name of a psychiatrist to the effect that “this CC suffers from a man-made disease prior to this time,” the degree of family members came to know about, and undergo treatment, and that it appears that this CC currently suffers from a man-made disease, and that medical treatment is needed,” and the above head of the FF requires the head of the Gu HF to provide documents under the premise that “this CC’s technical content on the Internet and the situation of its contact is true.” The head of the Gu H was to prepare a written evaluation of the contents of “this CC’s disease,” and then, the head of the Gu H was issued to the head of the Gu H to this effect that it would be very difficult to read the above evaluation book to the head of the Gu, and that it would seriously harm the mental health of the CC’s own mental health department or the content of the Seoul National University Hospital’s hospitalization.” However, the above evaluation book was presented to the Defendant.

구HH는 피고인의 위와 같은 지시를 받고, 정신건강의학과 전문의인 장FF이 그 전문적인 지식과 판단에 기초하여 작성한 평가문건을 전문의가 아닌 피고인이 수정한대로 장FF에게 수정해줄 것을 요구하는 것은 의료계 종사자로서 할 수 없는 일이라고 생각하였음에도 보건소장에 대한 인사 및 징계 등의 권한이 있는 피고인의 지시를 거절할 경우 입게 될 불이익을 우려하여 어쩔 수 없이 다시 장FF을 찾아가 피고인이 직접 수정한 문건을 보여주면서 피고인이 수정한 내용이 반영되도록 이CC에 대한 평가문건을 다시 작성해달라고 요청하였다. 위 장FF은 정신건강의학과 전문의인 자신이 작성한 문건을 정신건강의학과 전문의도 아닌 피고인이 수정한 것을 보고 매우 기분이 나빴으나 ◇◇시장인 피고인이 ☆☆서울대학교병원이나 센터에 미치는 영향력을 감안하여 이를 거절할 수 없어 피고인이 수정한 내용 중 ‘조울병은 굉장히 심각한 질병’이라는 취지의 내용을 관련 교과서 문언을 참고하여 추가하는 등의 방법으로 피고인이 원하는 수정 취지에 맞게 다시 문건을 작성하였다. 이어 구HH가 위와 같이 수정 작성된 문건을 장FF으로부터 건네받아 이를 피고인에게 교부하자, 피고인은 다시 구HH에게 위 평가문건에 ☆☆서울대학교병원이나 센터의 직인을 받아오라고 지시하고, 구HH는 위 지시에 따라 장FF에게 ☆☆서울대학교병원이나 센터 직인을 찍어달라고 요청하였으나 장FF은 정식문서가 아니라는 이유로 이를 거절하고 대신 센터에 가서 자신의 막도장을 찍는 것은 허락하여 구HH는 위 센터의 상임팀장인 윤II으로부터 장FF의 막도장을 건네받아 위 수정문건에 날인한 후 피고인에게 교부하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with leB, made thisCC appear to be subject to the diagnosis and protection application under Article 25(1) of the former Mental Health Act, by abusing the authority of the Do governor-gu public health clinic and center, and by abusing the authority of the Do governor-gu public health center in order to direct and supervise the Do governor-gu public health center and center, and hospitalization under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act. The Defendant, in collusion with the leB, had the Gu H revise the above evaluation report as the Defendant’s intent against the FF’s professional knowledge and judgment, and affixed the seal of the FF to the said document so that the completion can be seen as a medical doctor’s emotional opinion, and the FF revised the above evaluation report in conflict with the Defendant’s professional knowledge and judgment, thereby having the latter perform an act without any obligation.

(iii)the preparation and dispatch of official text for diagnosis and the preparation of protection applications to thisCC;

On April 2012, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the former H to the effect that “thisCC may not be readily concluded to have a risk of harm to itself or others due to mental illness; (b) it does not require face-to-face diagnosis; and (c) the Defendant directly displayed “the risk level of harm to others” publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, which is the Ministry of Health and Welfare, by printing out “the risk level of harm to others” on the part of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, including, but not limited to, the head of the secretary leB, the policy expenditure council, and the performance expense council, along with the relevant legal data from the former H.

구HH는 위와 같이 계속하여 피고인으로부터 이CC에 대한 구 정신보건법 제25조 시장 등에 의한 입원 절차를 진행하라는 취지의 지시와 질책을 받자 前 ▨▨도 정신보건지원단장인 이KK에게 자문을 구하였고, 위 이KK도 마찬가지로 관련법령 등을 근거로 ‘문건만으로는 이CC이 정신질환으로 자신 또는 타인을 해할 위험이 있다고 의심된다고 단정하기 어렵고, 대면진단도 없으며, 보호자인 배우자의 동의가 없는 한 시장 등에 의한 강제입원은 할 수 없다’라는 의견을 제시하였으며, 구HH는 그 무렵 피고인에게 위와 같은 자문결과를 보고하였다.

Then, on April 2012, 2012, the Defendant, at the △△○ Market Office, told that “I would like to see why I would like to see why I would like to see why I would be able to see why I would like to see that I would like to see why I would be unable to hospitalize at the mental hospital or why I would be able to see, and why I would be able to see, if I would be able to see, I would like to say that I would like to see that I would be able to see the Defendant’s mental health center’s opinion, and that I would be able to see how I would be “I would be able to hospitalize” and “I would like to see how I would see that I would have to see that I would have to see that I would have to see that I would have to see that I would have to see that I would have to see how I would have to be hospitalized in the above public health clinic after being hospitalized in accordance with Article 25(3).

On April 2012, 2012, the Defendant instructed the Gu H to “Gu Head of Gu, a mental health center, a person who is obligated to instruct compulsory hospitalization under Article 25,” and the Gu H H to refuse to comply with the above instruction, and the Gu H to this effect “YL Head of the Gu,” and the Gu H to this effect “YL Head of the Gu,” and the Gu H to this effect “YL Head of the Gu, a public health center under the jurisdiction of the public health center of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do, and the Gu H to this effect,” the Defendant respondeded to “YL Head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the public health center of △△△ City, the head of the Gu, is

As above, the Defendant did not comply with the Defendant’s instruction, and the LL appears to have taken the direction of the Defendant, and the head of the Gu in Do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and only the head of the Gu in Do in accordance with the market, etc. under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act was able to proceed with hospitalization procedures for thisCC, and the head of the Gu in Do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the head of the Gu in order to replace the head of the Gu in the Gu in the Gu in the Gu in the Gu in the Gu in the Gu of Do in the Gu of △ from the Gu to the LL from the Gu in May 2, 2012

This L, as seen above, was known by the Defendant and the former H in the △△ Viewers market room on April 2012 that hospitalization by the market under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act with respect to thisCC was unlawful because it did not meet the requirements. Furthermore, around May 2, 2012, after being appointed to the head of the Dong-gu Public Health Center in Do-gu, Do-gu, Seoul, and after being appointed from May 2, 2012 to the head of the above regional health center, the hospitalization by the market head, etc. under the former Mental Health Act with respect to thisCC cannot be conducted without satisfying the requirements under the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and it was clearly known that the Defendant’s above instruction was illegal.

한편, 피고인은 2012. 6. 11.경 ☆☆구보건소장을 이LL으로 교체하였음에도 센터가 협조하지 않아 이CC에 대한 입원 절차의 진전이 없다고 생각하고, 센터를 압박하여 센터장 장FF으로 하여금 이CC에 대한 진단 및 보호신청을 하게 하기 위해 처 김OO, 윤BB, 백GG 등과 함께 위 센터를 위탁운영하는 ☆☆서울대학교병원을 찾아가 정신건강의학과 전문의인 하PP에게 자문을 구하면서 ‘이CC에 대한 대응방안, 위 센터의 업무 및 절차’ 등에 대하여 문의하였고, 이에 위 하PP은 ‘조증이 의심되나 가족들이 병원에 데리고 가는 방법 이외에 다른 방법은 없다’라고 답변하였으며, 윤BB도 2012. 6. 18.경 위와 같은 이유로 ☆☆서울대학교병원을 찾아가 정신건강의학과 전문의인 하QQ에게 이CC을 강제입원시킬 수 있는지 자문을 구하였고, 이에 위 하QQ은 강제입원은 절대 안된다고 답변하였으며, 그 무렵 피고인은 별도로 ☆☆서울대학교병원 병원장인 정JJ에게 2회에 걸쳐 전화를 하여 ‘우리 형님이 좀 이상한데 입원이 필요할 것 같다, 어떻게 해야 되느냐, 형의 상태가 이렇게 심각한데 왜 조치를 취해주지 않느냐, 왜 이런것도 안해주느냐’라는 취지로 말을 하는 등 이CC에 대한 입원절차에 협조하여 달라고 압박하였으나 위 정JJ도 “알아보니 강제입원은 안되는 것 같다”라는 취지로 부정적인 답변을 하였다.

피고인은 이전에 구HH로부터 위 관련법령 등을 보고받은 것과 함께 정신건강의학과 전문의인 하PP, 하QQ과 ☆☆서울대학교병원 병원장인 정JJ에게 위와 같이 자문한 결과, 이CC에 대한 구 정신보건법 제25조의 시장 등에 의한 입원은 그 요건이 충족되지 않아 그 절차를 진행할 수 없다는 사실을 알았고, 또한 구 정신보건법 제25조 제1항에 규정된 ‘발견’이라 함은 보통 센터에 민원이 접수된 후 센터장인 정신건강의학과 전문의나 정신보건전문요원이 현장에 직접 출동하여 정신질환자로 의심되는 사람에 대하여 상담 또는 일정기간 관찰하는 것을 의미하는데 이CC의 경우에는 위 ‘발견’이 없음에도 불구하고 2012. 6. 12.경 ◇◇시청 시장실에서, 윤BB, 정JJ, 백GG이 배석한 자리에서 이LL에게 ‘내가 지금 해외출장을 가는데 정신보건법 제25조에 의한 입원이 가능하다고 판단되니 입원을 진행해라, 법적으로 아무 문제가 없는데 당연히 해야되는 것 아니냐’라는 취지로 지시하고, 그 무렵 위 윤BB은 계속하여 이LL에게 전화하여 입원절차를 진행하라고 재촉하였으며, 피고인은 브라질 해외출장 중임에도 이LL에게 약 3회에 걸쳐 국제전화하여 ‘이LL 보건소장님, 지금 뭐하고 계십니까, 정신보건법 제25조로 시장에 의한 입원이 가능한데 일련의 조치를 안하십니까, 보건소장 맞습니까’, ‘이 양반아, 그러면서 당신이 보건소장 자격이 있느냐’라는 등의 말을 하면서 강력한 어조로 이CC에 대하여 구 정신보건법 제25조에 의한 입원 절차를 진행할 것을 지시하였다.

Accordingly, on June 2012, LL requested on the part of the police officer to the effect that the Defendant’s above instruction was illegal and refused to follow the Defendant’s complaint, personnel disadvantage, etc., and that the Defendant’s complaint, etc. would be affected by the Defendant’s refusal to follow the Defendant’s order, and that the Defendant’s request for diagnosis and protection of a mental health specialist, which is a prior condition to proceed with hospitalization procedures by the market, etc. under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, at the Gu public health clinic of Do-gu, Do-dong, Do-gu, Seoul, to the effect that the Defendant’s request for diagnosis and protection would be reached. However, the FF did not refuse to accept the request by this case’s LL and Do-B by stating that “When there is a father, how the father is hospitalized, whether the father is hospitalized, or not having to be hospitalized.”

In addition, this LL, as above, ordered the Defendant to proceed with the procedure of hospitalization by the Mayor, etc. of Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act to thisCC, from leB around that time, instructed the new M, who is the head of the Gu Public Health Center in the Do-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the head of the local public health center, to undergo an interview at the center, and sent the results of the interview to the public health center of Do-Si, Do-si, and the head of the Gu-U.S., who requested the interview to the public health center of Do-U.S. on June 19, 2012, he sent the results of the interview to the public health center of Do-U.S., and ordered the head of the above public health center to review the public health department of Do-U.S., the head of the above public health center of Do-U., after reviewing this, sent the public question to the public health center of 5 years after receiving the above interview from Do-U.S.

On June 20, 2012, the next day, the LAL instructed newM to draft an official document stating that “A person suspected as a mentally ill person as a result of an interview with the guardian of a person subject to mental health counseling submitted by the Center shall apply for a diagnosis and protection as soon as he/she applied for a diagnosis and protection from the center,” and ordered KimN to examine the above official document, and then, the newM drafted the above official document in accordance with the above order, KimN reviewed it, and then the KimN approved it and sent the above official document to the Center.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with the public health center in the Do-gu in the Do-dong in Seoul Special Metropolitan City in order to pressure the center through the public health center in the Do-dong in order to start the procedure of hospitalization under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act. The Defendant abused the authority of the Do-gu public health center and the center in order to direct and supervise the public health center in the Do-dong and the center in order to hospitalization under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and caused the public health center in the Do-dong Special Metropolitan City and Do-gu public health center in order to prevent thisCC from being hospitalized under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act. In addition, the Defendant requested the results of the interview with the center against the relevant laws and regulations that only mental health specialists and mental health specialists may file an application for diagnosis and protection under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and urged the center-related persons such as the FF to send the results of the interview to the public health center in Do-dong Special Metropolitan City in conflict with the relevant laws, practices and principles of privacy.

(iii)the diagnosis of thisCC and the preparation and dispatch of an application for protection;

On June 20, 2012, the head of the FF rejected the request for the diagnosis and protection of the public health clinic in the Gu of Do, including the above paragraph (2) from the perspective of the purport that “it is impossible to apply for the examination and protection at the present stage” as an official letter.

Since then, around July 2012, LL thought that the Seoul Metropolitan City Hospital in Seoul Special Metropolitan City in Do does not help thisCC to be hospitalized, and that the Do governor Hospital in Do in Do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the hospital under the direction and supervision of the public health center in Do in Do in two times, requested that the mental health doctor of the department of mental health of the above Do ○○ Hospital in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, “I refer to the medical doctor’s opinion or diagnosis necessary for the hospitalization of the market type,” and the RR rejected the request by stating that “I would be able to examine the subject once because I would be able to do so.”

On the other hand, around July 28, 2012, PapB prepared a certificate of the content that “thisCC and the Defendant’s mother, who requested diagnosis and treatment of son, left it alone, is legally responsible if left alone,” using a computer located therein to pressure the CCC to diagnose and apply for protection against thisCC, and then, reported this to the Defendant, the Seoul Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province Mayor and the head of the Center of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province sent the above certification of the content to the head of the Center.

The head of the FF, upon receipt of the above certification of the contents, shall report the phrase that he/she will be legally responsible to the side of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do University, in his/her contractual position, and if he/she does not accept the above request, he/she will be able to continue his/her service in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do University, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In the opinion that this LL, the head of the supervisory agency of the center, and leB, etc. urged him/her to continue hospitalization procedures, the center around August 2, 2012, the center established a mental health medical specialist who found a suspected of undermining himself/herself or others due to mental illness, as provided for in Article 6(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mental Health Act, shall file an application for diagnosis and protection with the Mayor having jurisdiction over the place where he/she found the place where he/she found that he/she had found the person's address as a mentally ill person. However, this application for diagnosis and protection was partially recorded in the address, and it did not contain address, and prepared an application for diagnosis and correction of 2.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with leB, directed and supervised the Gu public health clinic and center in Do, Do, and the center for the purpose of hospitaling thisCC pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and abused the authority of △△ City, which can be allowed to be hospitalized pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and caused a person related to the center, such as the headF, to perform the duties of the center to determine whether to apply for diagnosis and protection after the long-term meeting observation, and the face-to-face treatment principle of mental health specialists, so that the Defendant did not have any duty to request diagnosis and protection against thisCC.

4) The attempt to enforce hospitalization with respect to thisCC pursuant to Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act

This L, around August 3, 2012, at the public health clinic of Do, Do, Dong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, received a diagnosis and a written notice of application for protection from the headF, and then, Do-Seoul Special Metropolitan City, instructed Do-Si, Do-Si, Do-si, to draft a public notice stating, “In response to the request for diagnosis and protection from the public health center of Do-si pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Mental Health Act, the diagnosis of the person suspected of having mental illness pursuant to Article 25(2) of the Mental Health Act and to cooperate with the person suspected of having mental illness pursuant to Article 25(2) of the same Act and instruct Do-N to review the above public notice according to the above direction. Accordingly, Do-Gu, Kim N, this review, with the approval of this, made the above public notice to the Do-Si-Gun Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Mental Health Center, which is a medical specialist, and delivered the above public notice to the public health clinic, with the diagnosis cycle and request of Do-Gu.”

All of the above circumstances are as follows: “B” around August 2012, 2012, LB, who is a police officer assigned for viewing due to satisfying all the requirements, sent YL to Y; “B is forced to involuntary hospitalization”; “B is a police officer assigned in advance by leB to YY; and “L is illegal to hospitalization of CC against her wife and her father, who is the guardian of CC and her father.” However, the YG was aware that the hospitalization against her wife and her father, the guardian of CC, was illegal.

그러나 이LL은 2012. 8. 17.경 계속하여 피고인과 윤BB 등으로부터 시장 등에 의한 입원 절차 이행의 압박을 받자 피고인의 이CC에 대한 구 정신보건법 제25조 시장 등에 의한 입원 절차 진행 지시에 따르지 아니할 경우 피고인에 의한 고소, 인사상 불이익 등을 염려하여 결국 앰뷸런스를 이용하여 이CC을 위 서RR이 작성한 ‘정신질환자로 의심되는 자에 대한 진단 의뢰에 대한 회신’ 문건으로 ☆☆○병원에 입원시키기로 마음먹고 위 신MM에게 ‘2012. 6. 15.자 ◇◇시 정신건강센터에 대상자의 어머니와 여동생이 방문하여 면담하였던 대상자의 진단의뢰를 위해 차량 및 정신보건전문요원의 동행을 요청하오니 협조하여 주시기 바랍니다’라는 내용의 공문을 기안하도록 지시하고, 김NN에게 검토하도록 지시하였다. 그리하여 신MM이 위 지시에 따라 위 내용의 공문을 기안하고, 김NN이 이를 검토하고, 그런 다음 이LL은 이를 결재하여 센터에 발송하였다. 이어 이LL은 같은 날 신MM과 함께 보건소 앰뷸런스를 타고 센터로 가서 장FF을 태운 다음 중원경찰서에 출석하기로 되어 있는 이CC을 강제로 입원시키기 위해 중원경찰서로 가면서 장FF에게 “오늘 진단을 하고 바로 입원시킵시다”라고 말을 하였다. 그러나 장FF이 “그건 절대 안된다”라고 말하고, 불상의 ◇◇시 관계자로부터 유선으로 경찰관들이 ‘이CC을 정신병원에 강제로 입원시키는 것은 위법하다’라는 취지로 말하였다는 것을 전해 듣고 자신이 형사처벌을 받을지 모른다는 생각에 이CC에 대한 강제입원 시도를 포기하고 앰뷸런스를 돌려 ☆☆구보건소로 돌아왔다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with YB, abused the authority of the △△ City public health clinic and center in order to direct and supervise thisCC under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and let the public health clinic-related person of the △△△ City, including YL, in response to the results of the examination of the public health clinic of the Gu △△△ City, that it is impossible to hospitalization thisCC under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act and the practices of dealing with the mental health business of the public health clinic, etc., requested the center to accompany the vehicle and mental health specialist in the center, and requested the LL, lengthF, and newM to accompany the center. The results of the examination by the public health clinic and the center that the LL, the F, and the newM cannot be hospitalized under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and the public health clinic and the center's practices of dealing with the affairs of the public health clinic and the center, and the face-to-face examination and treatment by the mental health clinic and the center to put thisCC into a place.

B. Determination on the assertion on the terms of lawsuit

1) Summary of the assertion

This part of the facts charged contains contents that could give a judge an unreasonable prejudice, such as the defendant's personal family history, the defendant's psychological condition, and legal opinion on the law, which are not related to the specification of the facts charged or the facts constituting the elements of the facts charged, and thus, the indictment is null

2) Determination

A) When a public prosecutor institutes a public prosecution, he/she shall submit only one indictment, and attach documents or other things that may cause the court’s prejudice on the case, or not cite the contents of the indictment (Article 118(2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). It shall be included in the contents of the principle of an indictment only as the so-called “Prohibition of entry of other facts” that does not allow the court’s prejudice as a fact other than the matters required by law. Whether the violation of the principle of an indictment only is a violation of the principle of an indictment only shall be specifically determined in the relevant case based on whether the documents or other things attached or quoted in the indictment, and whether the facts other than those required by law may interfere with the judge’s understanding of the substance of the crime by causing a judge’s prejudice (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Do7436, Oct. 22, 2009).

B) The facts charged of abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights are the constituent elements of the Defendant’s act of abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of official authority, and whether the Defendant’s exercise of official authority was practically unlawful and unreasonable as a commission of the exercise of official authority. As such, it is necessary to describe the grounds for the Defendant’s act and the interpretation of relevant statutes, background, motive and process of the Defendant’s act of abuse of official authority, and the psychological state of the person involved in the case, etc. in a way that clearly describes the fact that the pertinent act constitutes abuse

In this regard, even if there is a somewhat unnecessary or broad statement in the facts charged, it does not seem to have reached the degree that the judge could be an obstacle to grasping the substance of the crime by causing a judge’s prejudice.

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

C. Interpretation of relevant statutes, such as Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act

This part of the facts charged includes the defendant's act related to the procedure under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act with respect to thisCC, and the prosecutor has an interpretation theory of the relevant provision on the facts charged. However, there is a difference between the defendant and the prosecutor about the interpretation of the requirements for application of the relevant provision. Therefore, this article examines the meaning of Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act on the premise of

1) Relevant statutes

A person shall be appointed.

2) Legislative intent of the former Mental Health Act and procedures for hospitalization of mentally ill persons

The purpose of the former Mental Health Act is to contribute to the improvement of mental health of citizens by preventing mental illness and prescribing necessary matters concerning the medical treatment and rehabilitation of mentally ill persons (Article 1). The Mental Health Act provides for the right to optimum treatment and protection for all mentally ill persons in the social security legal ideology of treatment and protection for mentally ill persons with limited mental capacity, in addition to the dignity and value as human beings, prohibition of discrimination, and prohibition of discrimination, the right to special education in cases of minors, the right to self-help and free exchange of opinions with other persons (Article 2).

The former Mental Health Act recognizes hospitalization by a person responsible for protection (Article 23) and non-voluntary hospitalization (Article 24), hospitalization by a head of a Si/Gun/Gu (hereinafter “head of a Si/Gun/Gu, etc.”) and emergency hospitalization (Article 25), and takes into account not only his/her treatment and rehabilitation for mentally ill persons, but also social defense aspects, as well as appropriate treatment. In cases of non-voluntary hospitalization, it may result in infringement of an individual’s physical freedom, depending on the case of being hospitalized into a mental medical institution, etc. against or against the will of a person suspected of being a mentally ill person. Accordingly, a person suspected of being a mentally ill person without due process under the former Mental Health Act and due process thereof may not be hospitalized into a mental medical institution, and a person who violates this shall be held a civil and criminal liability.

The former Mental Health Act strictly provides for the requirements and procedures of hospitalization in order to prevent indiscreet abuse of hospitalization of a mentally ill person. In principle, voluntary hospitalization of a mentally ill person is recommended, and, even in the case of voluntary hospitalization, the mentally ill person is required to submit an application for hospitalization, and clearly confirm the intention of hospitalization. In the case of hospitalization by a legal guardian, the consent of the legal guardian and the diagnosis of a mental health specialist is required, and the consent of hospitalization and documents by the legal guardian are to be submitted. In the case of hospitalization by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, there is a risk that the person suspected as a mentally ill person may harm himself/herself or others, and the accurate diagnosis of the symptoms is necessary, the hospitalization of the person suspected as a mentally ill person may be conducted within a fixed period of not more than two weeks at a mental medical institution or a general hospital. In addition, the period of validity of hospitalization of the mentally ill person can be extended except for cases where hospitalization by the consent of at least two mental health specialists who need to continue hospitalization of the mentally ill person.

3) Independent meaning of Article 25(1) and (2) of the former Mental Health Act

As seen earlier, hospitalization at a mental medical institution, etc., other than the case of emergency hospitalization, is based on the language and text of the law itself, but based on the premise of diagnosis. As to the diagnosis which is the premise of hospitalization, other provisions regarding hospitalization except Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act do not stipulate the procedure and method of diagnosis.

In relation to hospitalization by the legal guardian under Article 24 of the former Mental Health Act, even if the legal guardian gave consent to hospitalization by the legal guardian, the director of the medical institution for mental illness has diagnosed the mentally ill person in direct face-to-face and diagnosed the need for hospitalization, and accordingly, the director of the medical institution for mental illness has to determine hospitalization, and the exercise of physical strength within the reasonable scope is allowed only when the mentally ill person resists the hospitalization measures that meet these requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4415, Feb. 23, 2001). In the course of proceeding by the legal guardian, the Supreme Court declared that there is no ground to permit the exercise of physical force to undergo a diagnosis of the suspected mentally ill person in the absence of a decision of hospitalization by the legal guardian.

However, even after the above legal principles have been declared, the procedure under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act was almost not performed at the mental medical institution in a day, and instead, if a person does not participate in a tort committed in the course of transfer from the side of a mental medical institution, he/she may meet the requirements for hospitalization by the legal guardian without criminal responsibility. There are many cases where the business of the legal guardian was conducted in the form of exceeding the risk of escort to the legal guardian in need of hospitalization. Accordingly, the legal guardian used the following methods: compulsory transfer of a person who did not undergo a diagnosis to a mental medical institution for the purpose of transferring the person who did not undergo a diagnosis to a mental medical institution; the legal guardian system practically permits the transfer of a mentally ill person to a mental medical institution under the name of a medical specialist with the consent of two legal guardians; thus, it is frequent that the mentally ill person is illegally transferred by a private emergency transport, or is subject to confinement or assault in the process.

As can be seen, Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act provides that even if a person suspected as a mentally ill person is deemed to have a risk of undermining himself/herself or other persons as the result of a diagnosis request, the procedure under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act may proceed first after the procedure for hospitalization by a person who is not a procedure under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act is conducted by a legal guardian or by a legal guardian, and Article 25(1) and (2) of the former Mental Health Act provides that the procedure may proceed with the procedure under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act. The request for diagnosis under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act, which is conducted upon request for diagnosis and protection, has no discretion to the market, etc. in legal form, whereas Article 6(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the hospitalization is not immediately connected to the diagnosis under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act, taking into account the fact that the hospitalization request is not directly connected to the mental health doctor’s authority.

In addition, in addition to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, even if a person needs to undergo a diagnosis, the former Mental Health Act does not provide a basis for mental health diagnosis by another person's will, such as the legal guardian, without depending on his/her own will, so that the diagnosis according to his/her own will can be the basis for hospitalization. In principle, even in cases where the diagnosis should be conducted inevitably against his/her own will, the requirements are strict. The commencement of the procedure is limited to a mental health specialist or a mental health specialist who is an expert, other than the legal guardian, etc., and the person who is the subject of the diagnosis following the commencement of the procedure can become a mental health specialist designated by the head of a local government, who is not the applicant or the legal guardian, etc., so that the human rights of the subject is not unfairly infringed.

4) The meaning of “finding” under Article 25(1) of the former Mental Health Act

As seen earlier, unlike other provisions of the former Mental Health Act, Article 25 of the same Act independently provides for the procedure of diagnosis that is distinguished from hospitalization within the relevant procedure. In addition, the literal meaning of “finding” is interpreted as “the discovery of things, phenomenon, or fact-finding, which was not known or yet known,” and there is no limitation on the method and method of discovery even after examining the former Mental Health Act or other medical statutes. In addition, Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act provides that where a request for diagnosis and protection is filed under paragraph (1) of the same Act, a request for diagnosis and protection is to proceed to the request for diagnosis without determination as to the substantial content or reasonableness thereof. In light of the foregoing, there is no provision premised on face-to-face form in accordance with the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and the aforementioned procedure does not require hospitalization by the legal guardian, but it is reasonable to view that the procedure is “a person with a mental health disorder or the method of face-to-face method of diagnosis, etc., who is not able to secure diagnosis of a psychiatrist necessary for hospitalization due to hospitalization.”

5) Procedures for requesting diagnosis under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act

As seen earlier, Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act provides that a person who does not wish to undergo a diagnosis based on the administrative authority of the Mayor, etc. shall be subject to diagnosis against his/her will. Moreover, since the procedure for requesting a diagnosis falls under the procedure for receiving a diagnosis, which serves as the basis for hospitalization, a mental health specialist shall directly observe the subject, and not only shall he/she send documents, etc. to a mental health specialist formally, and the request for diagnosis includes necessary measures so that a mental health specialist may diagnose the subject thereof. Further, the above procedure for requesting a diagnosis constitutes a disposition against the will of the subject who provides a request for diagnosis based on administrative authority, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the head of the Gu may exercise the right to request a special Self-Governing Province pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, based on the premise that the person suspected of suffering from mental illness, i.e., using the same principle as the mental health doctor’s right to request a diagnosis and emergency medical service at the same time as the one’s own request for diagnosis and emergency services to the same extent.

6) Whether hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act requires face-to-face diagnosis

As seen earlier, in the procedure of hospitalization except for emergency hospitalization under Article 40(1) of the former Mental Health Act, the procedure of hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act constitutes an independent procedure of hospitalization, namely, “evaluation hospitalization.” In light of the history of the procedure of hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act, it is difficult to view that only the procedure of hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act is a procedure of exclusion under Article 40(1) of the former Mental Health Act. As seen earlier, the procedure of a request for diagnosis under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act is not merely a mere request for diagnosis, but is a procedure premised on actual diagnosis (Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the Mayor, etc. may request hospitalization, etc. based on the “the result of the request for diagnosis” and, even in accordance with attached Form 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the examination procedure must be deemed a person directly suspected as a mental patient.

Therefore, in order to take a measure of hospitalization under Article 25 (3) of the former Mental Health Act, according to the request of a diagnosis, a mental health specialist directly examines and recognizes the necessity of hospitalization (when it is deemed necessary to accurately diagnose the symptoms because of the risk of harm to his/her own body or others) as a mentally ill person, and the head of a mental medical institution shall request hospitalization by the mayor, etc. based on the results. In addition, when a person suspected of having a mental illness who meets all the above requirements renders a resistance, an administrative agency may exercise physical power within the reasonable scope in light of mental health and social aspects in order to achieve the purpose of hospitalization.

D. Legal principles regarding the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights and the exceptional points of this part of the charges

1) Relevant legal principles

A) The crime of abuse of authority refers to the unlawful exercise of authority by a public official on matters falling under his/her general authority, i.e., a formal and external exercise of authority, but its substance appears to be an act other than a justifiable authority. Accordingly, abuse of authority is distinguishable from a tort using a status where a public official does an act that does not fall under his/her general authority. The term “liability” in the crime of abuse of authority refers to a legal obligation, and a simple psychological obligation or moral obligation does not fall under this (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2800, Dec. 27, 191).

B) If the crime of abuse of authority under Article 123 of the Criminal Act is completed, it is insufficient to say that there was an act of having the victim perform an act without any obligation, and it is required to have the victim performed an act without any obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do2665, Oct. 10, 1978); and there is a proximate causal relationship between the abuse of authority and the result of having the victim perform an act without any legal obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3453, Apr. 15, 2005).

C) “When one allows a person to perform a non-obligatory act” means the time when one allows a person to perform a non-obligatory act, and even if a public official allows a person in charge of the performance of his/her duties to perform a fact-finding act assisting the performance of his/her duties with respect to matters belonging to his/her official authority, this does not, in principle, constitute “when one causes a person to perform a non-obligatory act” as referred to in the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights. However, if the standards and procedures for performing his/her duties specifically stated in statutes and the person in charge of the duties are given a person in charge of the duties with a unique authority and role to apply the standards and procedures for performing his/her duties and participate in the procedures, such act constitutes “when one assists a person in performing his/her duties in violation of such standards and procedures” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

D) The criteria for determining whether a public official constitutes abuse of authority ought to be determined by taking into account all the elements, such as the purpose of a specific public official’s act of performing his/her duties, necessity and reasonableness in light of the situation in which the act was performed, and whether the exercise of official authority satisfies the statutory requirements permissible (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1884, Jan. 27, 2012).

2) The exceptional points of this part of the facts charged

The prosecutor considers that the defendant would have been hospitalized pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act. However, since the defendant cannot be punished as an attempted crime of abuse of official authority and obstruction of another's exercise of official authority against the defendant, the defendant's individual exercise of official authority against the public health clinic in the Gu of △△△ and the members of the mental health center in △△△△ City, which was conducted in a series of processes to be hospitalized, constitutes a crime of abuse of official authority. As such, the crime of abuse of official authority is committed by abusing official authority to allow a person to perform an act without any obligation. Thus, in order to separate act to constitute a crime of abuse of official authority, the requirements required by Article 123 of the Criminal Act should be satisfied (in order that the defendant commits a crime of abuse of official authority against thisCC, as in this part of the facts charged, the act of abuse of official authority against the public official belonging to the public health clinic in △△ City and the specialized agencies belonging to the public health center in △△ City should not be established separately from the crime of abuse of official authority.

E. Evaluation of the details and circumstances leading to thisCC to proceed with the procedure under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act

1) Circumstances suspected of mental illness of thisCC

A) The situation surrounding the brush of preferential commission of juvenile training centers in 2002

(1) On February 2002, thisCC opened a meeting on the homepage of △△△ City, based on the Tolusian, and made a statement that he/she was given preferential treatment to juvenile training establishments and that he/she had a son and female relationship twice with the father and female.

CC’s ex post facto marcing of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of bits of us.

In addition, the current SS made a statement to the effect that, in order to put an article related to the suspicion of the above preferential entrustment, thisCC made a threat that “I will store and throw away it,” by putting on the phone, it made a statement to the effect that “I will see it,” write down a letter contrary to the contents of the article of the current SS on the Gyeong○ Broadcasting website, △△ Citizens’ Meeting website, △△○ Citizen Meeting website, △△○○○○ Internet website, and Doing the phone with the head office of the Gyeong○ Broadcasting Headquarters in several hundreds per day, and “I change the president, the director of the news report,” and “I change the news report.

(2) At the time, KimT, a working-level of △△ civic group, stated that around that time, the Defendant and the media companies did not enter thisCC’s request that they contain the suspicion of entrustment with the above preferential treatment, and that, at that time, thisCC read the books of telephone and bathing, and bullying that “I read the books of several thousands of rights, are superior to those of adults, and they are making efforts to become adults,” “I are superior to those of adults, even next to women who are off the prisons, X is out of the prisons,” and “I am out of the prisons, I am out of the prisons,” and “I am out of the prisons, I am out of the prisons.”

(3) Around that time, KimO, LeeU stated that thisCC had been able to find out the Defendant’s house with the camping net and there was a timely entry.

B) As to the uniforms of 2002, 2002

(1) On June 5, 2012, thisCC posted a talk with the Defendant that 0GG had a little of fluencing with the Defendant, and it was called that 00 GGG had a little of flucing with the Defendant, and that she had a little of flucing with the intention of fluencing fluing, “the fluing this article,” “a medicine brought about through a spirit and a post-ming intention,” and “a medicine used in fluing”. On October 9, 2012, thisCC was investigated as the suspect of the case of assaulting her mother and her birth at the ○○○○○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Office’s ○○○○○○ branch office, and made a statement to fluing hercing fluing hercing flus, and it was written to fluing fluing fluing flus.

(2) On February 2002, CC concluded that, while making a telephone with a S reporter and a telephone, she “doese satise satise satise satise satise satise sate sate sate satise sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sate sat.”

(3) There is a record in which the date of preparation is the name of thisCC on February 16, 2002, in the medical records of the Yongsan○ Hospital working for 0GG.

(4) At the time, 0GG made a statement to the effect that: (a) at the time, the Defendant is exempted from the amount of medicine, not a little little, in the court; (b) at the time, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that: (c) “In so far as it is too difficult due to its punishment; (d) many items of medicine are written on the Internet bulletin board; and (c) ○○ Civil Group’s request was made; and (d) it cannot be said that the Defendant was the owner of the drug at the time, and that the Defendant was the owner of the drug at the time. In light of the circumstances, the Defendant was able to be deemed to have the drug.

(5) GG and the Defendant stated that “I am informed of the drug. I would like to put thisCC into a difficult situation.”

(6) At the time of thisW, EP, EY, EY, and ZT, the parties involved in thisCC’s meetings, such as relatives, lowest AB, EU, and Kim TT, etc., stated that thisCC knows that it was drinking with an anger. Among the statements made by theseCC’s relatives, ParkV knows that bV was aware that it was drinking with an oriental medicine.

(7) Although 0GG seems to have acknowledged that it was sacratized in the course of thisCC and the monetary process, it did not record, thus making a statement to the effect that it is fine.

C) the statements of families with respect to thisCC

(1) At around 2002, KimO stated that the mother of thisCC stated that the mother was able to say that “Isthmthm in the negorithm?” and that there was a hostile discussion with other children.

(2) During the early 2000s, Y made violent and abnormal changes from 2000, Y stated that Y made verbal abuse, such as she puts a bath at the house of large-scale LeeBT in the past, and went to a large range of times without any justifiable reason, and she made a brut and her death, and she made it difficult for her mother to do so. At the same time, she was in a way that she was unable to do so, and she was in a way to stop her sexual seedlings or intention, and she was in a way that she was trying to walke and her brut, and she was in a way that she did not borrow KRW 50 million to her mother.”

(3) Among the counseling records at the National ○○ Mental Hospital, there was a record stating that “thisCC has a large number of economic difficulties in 2007. The same shall apply to the case where one’s own climate is good and the other has continued to exist without a large number of people after that period.”

D) Action of thisCC from February 2012 to around the facts charged

(1) Preparation of a large number of comments that criticize △△ City, etc. on the bulletin board of △△△ City.

From February 22, 2012 to August 11, 2012, thisCC published a total of 156 articles on the bulletin board of “Yan City of △△△.” In particular, the subject of “whether the Defendant, who is the current △△ Market, considers the Defendant to have a qualification for △△ City,” and mainly, indicated that the Defendant’s demand for and criticism on the △△ City’s personnel affairs, budget, demand for and criticism on the projects, etc. being promoted in △△ City, public officials having conflict with himself, employees affiliated organizations, complaints and criticism against executives and employees belonging to △△△ City, and suspicions against public officials belonging to the Defendant and △△△ City, etc. In addition, the majority of this article showed that the employee of his office was subject to intimidation before being 1 year, and that if there was intimidation, the responsibility was attached to △△△ City.

(2) A public official, executive officers and employees affiliated with △△△ City, verbal abuse to citizens, abusive language, abusive language, intimidation, etc.

(A) Details of the confirmation, statement, etc. received by △△ City

이CC은 민원팀장 김AC를 상대로 박AD(이CC이 ◇◇시 홈페이지 게시판에 비방글을 게시한 ☆☆을 국회의원 예비후보자)과 관련하여 민원팀장의 말을 듣고 글을 삭제하였는데 그 사람이 고발한 이유를 묻고 박AD에게 연락하여 본인에게 고소를 취하도록 요구하고, 그렇지 않으면 재미없을 것이라고 말하고, ‘왜 삭제하라고 말하고 고소를 취하토록 하지 않느냐’, ‘이새끼 너 죽을래’ 하면서 ‘나한테 한번 혼나봐야 되겠다’는 욕설을 하였으며, ‘민원여권과장과 민원팀장 김AC는 나한테 죽을 각오를 하라’는 말도 하였다. 이CC은 민원여권과장 이AE을 상대로 ‘민원여권과에서 박AD한테 연락해서 고발 취하하라 해라. 그렇지 않으면 가만히 있지 않겠다’는 말을 하였다. 이CC은 민원여권과 박AF을 상대로 ‘야 박AF이 너 죽고 싶어? ○○년 ○○년’ 등의 ‘죽고 싶어’와 몇 번의 욕설을 반복적으로 하였다. 이CC은 공보관실 이AG을 상대로 ‘◇◇시에 바란다’ 답변과 관련한 전화통화에서 ‘당신 간첩이야, 권력의 하수인이야’ 등 황당한 이야기를 하고, 통화자의 이름을 부르면서 안기부에 고발한다고 협박하고, 혼잣말을 중얼거리는 등의 행위를 하였다. 이CC은 행정지원과 백GG을 상대로 전화를 수차례 하였는데 그 내용의 대부분은 특정인에 대한 비난, 또는 그 내용을 시장에게 전하라는 것으로 ‘집구석에 찾아가서 다리 몽달이를 분질러 놓겠다고 전해라, 가만두지 않겠다고 전해라, 이런식으로 하면 인생을 망칠 것이다, 다음 시장 바뀔 것이다, 놀고 앉아 있다, 문자 보내도 씹는다’는 등의 이야기를 하였고, 조AH 비서관을 일방적으로 바꿔달라면서 비서관에 대한 욕설 통화를 하였고, 이CC의 전화를 끊은 것에 대한 항의를 하면서 직무유기로 고소하느니, 손해배상을 청구하겠다고 하기도 하고, ‘기다리라고 이름을 올려주겠다’는 등의 말을 하였다. 이CC은 행정지원과 조AH을 상대로 국회의원 선거에 개입시 ◇◇시장을 시장 퇴출시키겠다는 협박성 발언, 산하기관 인사, 판교 철거민, 이AI 시의원과의 다툼, 개인 신상 문제를 거론하면서 1주일을 줄 테니 윤BB 비서실장이 연락줄 것을 요구하고, 연락이 없을 경우 ◇◇시 홈페이지 게재 및 언론에 보도하겠다는 협박성 발언, ◇◇시장에게 내용을 전달하지 않을 시 직무유기로 고발하겠다는 말을 하였고, 염○○ 이사장이 자신에게 반말을 했는데 시장이 지시했냐면서 욕설, 폭언, 협박 등으로 정상적인 민원업무를 볼 수 없을 정도였고, 시정 여론조사를 실시해서 시민만족도 50% 미만시 시장 퇴출, 50% 이상시 사과하겠다는 이야기, 선거 미개입 요구, 정JJ, 유AK, 이AL를 자를 것을 요구하는 등의 말을 하였다. 이CC은 행정지원과 김AM을 상대로 피고인, 윤BB, 안AN ◇◇문화재단 대표, 유AK ◇◇시시설관리공단기획본부장에 대하여 정상인으로서는 차마 입에 담을 수 없는 비인격적이고 무차별적인 욕설, 폭언 등 언어 폭력을 행사하였다. 이CC은 행정지원과 소AO를 상대로 통화 시작부터 ‘안AN 알아? 안AN ○새끼는 어떻게 공무원을 한거야’, ‘이AA ○새끼’, ‘윤BB 비서실장 그 ○새끼는 도대체 뭐하는 놈이야’ 등의 공무원 전체를 비하하고 욕설을 하였고, 소AO에게는 ‘소AO씨 탄천에서 쓰레기 줍게 해줄까’, ‘전 이AP시장 인수위에 내가 있었는데 다음번 정권에 내가 인수위에 들어가서 소AO씨 탄천으로 보내겠다’ 등의 협박성 민원전화를 하는 등 20분간 언어폭력에 시달리게 했다. 이CC은 자치행정과 신MM을 상대로 ‘민간협력팀장 신MM 왜 거짓말을 하느냐 ○○년, ○○년, ○같은 년 죽어버리겠다라고 당장 쫓아가서 귀싸대기를 때리겠다’는 등 심한 욕설을 하였고 ‘너는 거짓말을 했으니 경찰서에 고발하겠다, 경찰에서 보자’는 등 상식밖의 말을 하였다. 이CC은 자치행정과 오AQ을 상대로 ‘◇◇시에 바란다’에 기재된 글에 관하여 ‘오AQ 자치행정과장이 답변 못하게 했냐? 개새끼, 죽여버리겠다. 내가 인수위 시절 오AQ 과장은 무슨 팀장이었나? 이름 다 적어놨다. 나중에 시장 바뀌면 탄천 청소나 해라’ 등의 말을 하였다. 이CC은 예산법무과 우AR을 상대로 ‘잘못한게 없고 다 잘했다는 거냐. 어느어느 과장들은 다 죄송하다는데, 너는 뭐가 그렇게 잘나서 그렇게 도도하냐며 언론에 이름을 내주겠노라, 감사실에다가 이야기하겠다’는 이야기를 했고, 잠시 후 다시 전화를 해서 1시간이 넘는 시간 동안 유AK, 피고인의 측근에 대한 불만의 내용을 이야기하였다.

(b) Other matters described in the current status of visit and telephone response.

On the other hand, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party, which was called the △△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”). On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party, which was called the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party, called the ○○○○ Party’s Nonindicted Party 1 and the ○○○ Party.

(c) the content recorded in other evidence;

이CC은 ◇◇시시설관리공단 유AK 본부장과 통화하면서 왜 회계사님이라 안 부르고 이CC씨라 부르냐며 육두문자를 퍼붓고 일방적으로 전화를 끊었다. 이CC은 윤BB 비서실장에게 문자를 보내 시설관리공단 유AK의 고소 건에 대해 취하를 하지 않으면 이AA 구속시키고, 집에 가서 다리 몽뎅이를 뿐질러 버리겠다. 국가정보원 압수수색도 각오하라는 등 위협하였다. 이CC은 ◇◇시가 한국○○○○○운동본부로부터 최우수등급을 받은 것에 대해, ‘돈 주고 샀다’고 비난하였다. 이CC은 ◇◇시에 바란다 게시판에 이AA을 비난하는 글을 올리는 이CC에게 시민으로서 충고를 하는 내용의 글을 올린 시민 박AF에게 2차례 통화 과정에서 “야 이 씨발 새끼야! 시민이면 나도 올려, 이 새끼야! 신경 꺼라 이 씹새끼야! 내가 니 좆이야, 이 새끼야!? 이 건방진 새끼 죽고 싶어서 죽고 싶어, 이 새끼야!? 너 뭐하는 놈이야!? 이 새끼 뒤질라고 좋게 얘기했더니 건방지게 어디에다 글을 올려? 다 지워, 이새끼야!” 등의 욕설을 하였다. 이CC은 ◇◇시 감사관 정BD이 사는 마을로 찾아가 ‘정BD 개새끼’, ‘꽃뱀’, ‘도둑놈’ 등의 소리를 질러대었다. 이CC은 장FF ◇◇시 의회 의장에게 박BE 말고 아무나 의장으로 선출해주면 그 사람을 차기 시의장으로 만들어주겠다는 이야기를 하였다. 이CC은 경남 고성군에서 어린이들을 오른쪽으로 줄을 세우지 않고 3줄로 걸어다니게 해서 가는 길을 방해했다는 이유로 인솔교사에게 ‘교장을 정리할 테니까 대요! 학교 이름 대요!’, ‘청소년 수련관 관장 오라고 그래!’, ‘내 일당 50만 원 하는 사람이야.’, ‘학교 이름 어디에요? 내가 교육청에 올리게! 인터넷에 올리게 대세요. 여기가 말이죠, 6천만 년 전의 공룡 쥬라식 파크에 사는 거에요’, ‘경상남도 도지사는 그 따위로 교육시키냐고!?, 도지사 이름 뭐에요? 도지사 이름 알아요? 대세요. 관장 이름 뭐에요? 내 당장 쫓아 올라갑니다.’, ‘관장 사표 쓰게 해드릴게 내가, 경남도지사한테 얘기 해가지고. 내 청와대 갈까요? 한 번도 안 빌었어요, 나한테?’, ‘아저씨 아니에요! 회계사라고 했어요!’ 등의 말을 하고, 수련원장에게 ‘원장님! 나는 회계사님이라고’, ‘당신 말이야 고성군수실로 와!’, ‘이리 와! 철창으로 와! 경찰서로 와!’, ‘경찰서 와!, 술 한 잔을 먹었으면 당신 구속이야! 빨리 와. 따라오라고’, ‘고성군수실로 따라와! 당장 따라와 내 차 타고. 고성군수실 금방 가. 이거 개판이구만 이 동네? 원장이 나보고 당신이라고 그랬어? 당신 깡패지?’ 등의 말을 하였다. 이CC은 경기 ◇◇시 ○○구 ○○동에 있는 ◇◇시청 시의회 청사 4층 세미나실에서 ♧♧♧당 시의원 김BF 등 17명이 시의회 의장선출을 위한 임시총회를 열고 있다는 사실을 알고, “일요일에 ♧♧♧당 ◇◇시 의회의장 후보를 선출하는 것은 불법이다. 이AA 시장이 나를 정신병자로 취급하고 있는데 왜 아무런 조치를 취하지 않느냐.”라고 하면서 ◇◇시의회 청사에 침입하였다. 이CC은 ◇◇시의회 청사 침입 건으로 체포되면서 ‘나는 경찰청에 갈 사람이지 지구대나 갈 사람이 아니다. 내가 이AA 시장의 친형이다’라고 말하였다. 이CC은 농협은행 지점장에게 찾아가 ‘지금 화장실 왜 문 잠갔죠? 8시 넘어서? 8시 넘어서 문 잠갔다고. 그 계약서 가져와요. 임대차계약서에 8시 넘으면 문 잠그는지 갖고 오라고. 화장실 문 잠갔다고 화장실에 와보세요!’, ‘이AA이가 전화 왔잖아’, ‘당신이 이AA한테 했잖아!’, ‘당신 사표 써!’, ‘꺼져 너 죽을 줄 알아!’, ‘야, 부지점장 웃었어 너? 잘라버릴 거야 너’, ‘계약서 있어, 없어? 화장실 못 쓰는 계약서 대요. 안하면 당신 죽을 줄 알아 화장실’, ‘야 이 개새끼야 미친놈이라고 했지 너?’, ‘이AA이랑 공범이야’ 등의 말을 하였다. 이CC은 롯○백화점에 찾아가 매대를 차고 소리를 지르며 영업방해를 하고, 직원과 행인들에게 욕설 폭언을 하며 소란을 피운 적이 있고 ‘이AA 시장 친형인데 불만 있냐’, ‘이 개새끼 ◇◇시장이잖아’, ‘당신 롯○야? 당신 롯○ 이름 뭐야? 이 놈의 최☆☆이! 롯○ 신BG 오라고 해! 신BG 오라고 해!’, ‘☆☆구청으로 와!, ☆☆구청으로 와. 내가 너희들 아작 내줄게’, ‘형님! 저 좀 도와주십쇼. 롯○백화점 놈들이 저를 쫓아오고 있습니다. 아작을 좀 내주세요. 저 ☆☆구청으로 들어갑니다. 빨리 오세요. 만사... ☆☆구청장실 들어가요 롯○백화점 애들 내가 폭행... 폭행 했다고 쫓아오고 있어요’, ‘신BG 고소해. 그 씹새끼 고소해 오라 그래. 신BG는 씹새끼다, 신BG는 일본놈이다. 신BG는 세컨드 있다 꼽냐 신BG는 롯○리아다 웃었지 신BG는 또라이다 신BG는 롯○ 또라이다 내가 불러주지 정BD이 불러줄게’ 등의 폭언 욕설을 하였다.

(3) Abuse of abusive language, abusive language, intimidation, threat, etc. against the defendant and his relatives

(A) On May 28, 2012, thisCC found the Gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do , and Do Do Do Do Do Do Do do Do do , and Do Do Do Do Do do , Do Do Do Do na Do na Do na Do na Do Do , and Do Do na Do na Do na Do na Do na Do na Do , Do na Do , and Do na Do na Do na Do , Do , and

(B) ThisCC around June 2012, her mother-friendly Doz., “I am al. al. am al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al. al.. al. al. al. al......

(C) On June 5, 2012, thisCC: (a) decided on the Defendant on June 5, 2012, the Defendant: (b) “A person who is detained by the head of a aquatic patrol box,” “A person who does not carry this signal?” “A person who shall be detained by the police box,” “A person who is suspected of having a traffic patrol box,” “brupted by the police box,” and “brupted by the head of the traffic patrol box,” and “brupted by the head of the traffic patrol box,” and “brupted by the head of the traffic patrol box,” and “a person who is arrested by the head of the traffic patrol box,” and “a person who is arrested by the head of the public health clinic,” and “a person who is arrested by the head of the traffic patrol box,” and “a person who is the head of the public health clinic,” and “a person who is the head of the horse,” and “a person who is the head of the H in this case.

(D) In the currency with KimO on June 5, 2012, thisCC: (a) deemed that she died in her inner part; (b) it is necessary to see that she was the head of a public health clinic; (c) she would be deemed to have died in her inner part; (d) if she was only a manager in her inner part, she could appear in a hospital; (d) she was recommended by a personnel administration authority; (d) her name is equal to or lower than the head of the team; (d) she was recommended her; (d) her name can have legal terms and conditions; (d) she was so recommended her; (d) she was called her only her; (d) her person was her only her flat; and (d) her was her 13 people? It was said that she was disciplinary action; (d) she was called her her “Isknish?” her he was snished in her part?

(E) On June 5, 2012, thisCC dialogues with GOO on June 5, 2012, and (i) “Isn't want to do so in a fluent manner,” “Isn't want to do so,” “Isn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't, “I want to completely cut off inside kn't,” “Is you want to do kn't kn't kn't, so Is we can see that Is we will come to gn't fl't kn't, and “Isn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't kn't make an investment in the apartment.

(바) 이CC은 2012. 6. 5. 피고인과 통화 과정에서 ‘그 여자가 나를 꼬시려고 우리 회사에 침입했다고’, ‘뺨 안 맞았어 인마!’, ‘나가라고 밀어냈다니까!’, ‘너 이새끼야. 너 이새끼야, 마이킹 출신이라며? 조BH이가 알라딘 사장인데 간첩이다. 마이킹 출신이다. 너 있지, 그래서 단일화 했냐? 간첩들하고’, ‘내가 경고했지? ◇◇에서 요번에 한 100명 정도 간첩단, 청와대 50명 잡아간다’, ‘대검에서 그렇게 나왔다’, ‘성추행으로 해 갖고 돈 받아 갈라 그랬다’, ‘나한테 팬티를 보이고 유방을 보이면서 꼬셨다. 거래처 사장도 꼬셨다. 안 넘어갔지. 그래, 내 복수한 거다, 내한테’, ‘이LL이가 쫄았더라. 구HH가 쫄았더라. 전화 받으니까 딱 끊더라.’ 등의 이야기를 하였다.

(G) On July 15, 2012, thisCC sent a text message “Isday” to many people, including their family members, “Isday, Isday in the future of the distribution to the Hanbacsium. Isday, Isday, Isday. Isday, Isday. Isday, Isday, Isday. Isday, Isday, Isday. Isday, after Isday, Isday. Isday, Isday, and Isday, Isday, and there

(h) On July 15, 2012, CC requested Y, a her mother’s house, to go on the Internet to the effect that her Y, “Third her mother would fluent with her mother’s house and so it is necessary to treat her with her own house.” However, her mother was refused to go on her face and her face, etc. of Y as her drinking, and her mother continued to go beyond Y due to her wind in the inside bank, and her Y she started to go beyond her with her mouth, and then she she started to go beyond her with her mouth for about two (2) weeks. In addition, her mother was her mother at a place where her mother would have been in need of treatment at around two (2) weeks, where her her mother would drink her mother’s house. In addition, her mother was her mother at a place where her mother was in need of treatment at around two (2) weeks.

(4) dispute with 0GG

On May 19, 2012, thisCC made a telephone call to its Secretary, and found out the 0G 1st lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag that this lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag? lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag? Hag’s lag’s lag? this lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s 19th lag’s lag’s lag’s 19th lag’s lag’s lag, and this lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag’s lag and 2nd lag’s lag’s lag’.

2) Circumstances following the facts charged

A) The process leading to the diagnosis of depression

On February 20, 2013, thisCC visited the South ○○ National Assembly member, and was subject to a prescription that is commonly used for mental and physical stability, such as dynasium, anxiety, synasium, fysium, and neynasium, and was diagnosed by the ○○ and the ○○ Mental Health Doctor on March 13, 2013.

B) The traffic accident of thisCC

On March 16, 2013, 3 days after the diagnosis of depression, thisCC, along with ParkV, went through a mixed vehicle after the debate with ParkV, and talked that she would die by telephone to ParkV. In the latter, thisCC, in the course of driving, caused a traffic accident following the central line and caused a collision with the truck, resulting in a heavy injury such as cutting down the bridge.

C) Hospitalization of the National Rice Hospital;

On October 29, 2014, thisCC was diagnosed by the ○○ and ○○ Mental Health Doctor and a member of the ○○○○ Mental Health Doctor. From October 31, 2014 to November 5, 2014, Turkey returned separately from Turkey travel along with his family members, and ParkV, etc. In addition, thisCC was extracted on November 18, 2014 from several Guns, and it was found that thisCC was hospitalized on November 21, 2014 against the will of hospitalization by the legal guardian of the National ○ Hospital.

D) Circumstances revealed in the medical records, etc. of thisCC

(1) The medical record of the National ○○ Hospital: (a) had been diagnosed on February 2013; (b) had repeated and attempted suicide on March 16, 2013; and (c) had been repeated and discharged from the hospital with a high intention to multiple traffic accidents. Although the horses were born out of the hospital at the time, they were natural therapy. There were cases where the horses were divided into three different days after the accident, “10/13 to 11/5 and were unable to communicate accurately; and (c) had been tried to return home with their families, “I tried to see that I would like to have no other family members return to Korea,” and “I would like to have no other family members return to Korea,” and “I would like to have no other family members return to Korea,” and “I would like to have no other family members return to Korea,” and “I would like to have no other family members return to Korea,” and “I would like to have no other family members return to Korea.”

(2) On February 9, 2015, the opinion of the National ○○ Hospital’s medical specialist on February 9, 2015 that “CC began with symptoms, such as excessive behavior, over-the-counter, and the reduction of the degree of sleep, etc., and repeated symptoms and symptoms of depression were repeated and repeated in 2014.”

(3) On August 17, 2017, in the response to the Symna of the department of mental health in the Amba University Hospital, stating that “CC has committed violence on the place of family conference since around 2012 and has acted aggressively on the street store staff.”

(4) In addition, according to the data on March 10, 2015, the following facts: “In 2007, there was a little deal of accidents, such as “I wishing to die because it is difficult to have the money invested in a group of directors in a group,” “from November 2012 to February 2013,” and “an accident involving death on March 6, 2013,” and “an accident involving death on March 28, 2016 at the Human University○ Hospital, ○○○○ Hospital’s data, the birth of the patient four (4) years prior to the election of high-ranking public officials, and there was a conflict between the family members in the house.” A patient around this time, the patient, including his birth, entered the suicide with the central line of five (5) tons of the two (5) years prior to his/her death.”

3) Circumstances relating to efforts to encourage family history and the parent-child treatment for thisCC and to encourage the treatment of siblings and children;

A) Of the Defendant’s relatives, the Defendant and the Defendant’s relatives were aware of the symptoms and characteristics of the depression at the time, such as YY, and her husband’s Z5 at the time. This Y was in the state of being aware of the symptoms and characteristics of the depression, and this Y was in the state of BJ with her own fright, and it was said that it would be better for the Defendant to promptly treat the depression from her fright.

B) While reporting the acts of thisCC and soliciting ParkV to treat mental health, the GuD rejected treatment to the effect that ParkV did not suffer any error. Considering the discussions of the GuD, EW, EW, EBK, EY, YY, and KimO and the details of the FF’s evaluation, the GuD received a written request for mental appraisal under the name of the GuD on April 10, 2012, and signed this W, EW, EBK, and EY also jointly on the written request for mental health center in the future.

C) On June 2012, 2012, the Gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do - in order to provide counseling, but the application for diagnosis and protection was rejected, and thereafter the police filed a petition to appeal for medical treatment, prohibition of access under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence

D) After that, the GuD requested thisCC to the effect that it will receive and receive medical treatment in a criminal case in the course of telephone conversations with thisCC.

4) Evaluation of the Defendant’s procedural progress under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act with respect to thisCC

A) In around 2005, the public prosecutor argued that the relationship between the Defendant and thisCC was far away because thisCC loaned KRW 50 million from the GuD to her mother. In 2010, thisCC posted a statement of criticism on the Defendant’s corrective operation on the bulletin board of △△ City, thereby making a press-related report, etc. In 2012, thisCC posted a number of comments that criticize the Defendant’s market qualification on the bulletin board of △△ City, “I think that △△ City is qualified? I think that △△ City is qualified?” △△ City’s homepage, △△ City posted a number of comments that criticize the Defendant’s market qualification on the ground that △△ City did not visit △△△ City from time to time or take telephone civil petition, and repeatedly submitted a civil petition to △△ City public officials, and thus, it interfered with the correction and operation of the Defendant by taking advantage of the position of △△ City Mayor’s guidance and supervision of the Gu Mental Health Act.

B) However, as seen earlier, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the record, which are: (a) the Defendant knows that thisCC continued to use the medicine related to the mental illness as seen earlier; (b) it is unreasonable or unreasonable to determine that thisCC suffers from mental illness even during the Defendant’s punishment; and (c) it is unreasonable to determine that thisCC is in need of medical treatment from the Defendant’s point of view because it repeats violent speech; (b) the amount of violence exceeds the scope of public officials or executives and employees affiliated organizations belonging to Luxembourg-si, and the degree of display is gradually strengthened; (c) the Defendant’s examination of the materials related to this case’s mental health by △△F or △△△△△△△ upon request by a public official with a view to 20 years ago; and (c) the need to examine the materials related to this case’s mental health by taking into account the following factors: (a) it is more doubtful or doubtful that CC’s mental health specialists were in need of medical treatment; and (b) it is more doubtful or doubtful.

In other words, as seen earlier from February 22, 2012, the Defendant continued to run the Defendant’s corrective operation, qualification of the market, operation of public institutions belonging to △△ City or △△△ City, personnel affairs belonging to △△△ City and public officials belonging to the Defendant and its executives and employees, etc., and continuously criticizes or criticizes the Defendant. The Defendant continuously calls to public officials belonging to △△ City or its employees, and continuously calls to the public officials belonging to △△△ City, and makes unreasonable civil petitions related to posted comments, verbal abuse, abusive language, and abusive language, etc., while standing in front of the △△△△△ City market, and considered that such acts were caused by mental symptoms such as the depression’s depression. Furthermore, even though the Defendant repeated acts toward himself, and constantly complaining of difficulties for public officials belonging to the Defendant, etc., it is difficult for the Defendant to have the mental health diagnosis and treatment of the Defendant under this Act by obtaining the consent of the Defendant and his family members under this Act within the scope possible scope of the mental health diagnosis and treatment under this Act.

Therefore, the Defendant may be deemed to have carried out the instant procedure by collecting the cases of abusive language, abusive language, unreasonable demand, etc. from public officials under his/her jurisdiction in the form of receiving a written statement, etc. on the case of damage through the head of the secretary-general, and by allowing thisCC to deliver the written statement, etc. posted on the bulletin board to GuH, which is the head of the Gu Public Health Center of Do in Do, in order to verify whether diagnosis and hospitalization pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act are possible.

In addition, the application for diagnosis and protection under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act cannot be deemed unlawful or unfair to support the discovery of a person suspected of having a mental disorder by confirming the inherent role of a psychiatrist or a mental health specialist, the current status of a mental health specialist or a mental health specialist in an administrative agency, collecting data, and seeking cooperation in the process.

Of course, it is not appropriate for thisCC to accurately understand the suspect who is likely to harm himself/herself or others due to mental illness, and thisCC does not accept the wife of thisCC or adult child with respect to receiving the suspicion of a mentally ill person. The defendant's act of using public officials under his/her control to somewhat unreasonably and unreasonably implement the hospitalization procedure under the provisions of Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act is socially controversial and may be subject to criticism on a certain part. However, the defendant's act of participating in the procedure should not be readily concluded as constituting a constituent element of abuse of authority or obstruction of another's exercise of rights.

However, as seen earlier, hospitalization without a diagnosis by a mental health specialist is deemed illegal hospitalization, and the circumstance that the Defendant determined that the procedure of hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act is possible without face-to-face diagnosis by a mental health specialist is difficult to view all other procedures as illegal or unfair. Furthermore, Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act provides that regardless of the existence of a legal guardian, the procedure may commence independently regardless of whether the legal guardian exists, and whether thisCC is a person suspected of undermining himself/herself or others is a mental health specialist or a mental health specialist, and the head of a local government is interpreted to provide the proviso to the discovery of a person subject to a mental health specialist as part of public health administration, and that the procedure of hospitalization under Article 25(1) of the former Mental Health Act cannot be seen as unlawful by the Defendant and the public health clinic under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act, and that there is no conflict between the Defendant and the Defendant and the public health clinic under Article 5 of the former Mental Health Act.

F. As to the revision of evaluation questions by the FF of the Mental Health Specialists

1) Whether a request for advice falls under the territory of the Defendant’s general authority

According to Article 3 subparagraph 10 of the former Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of Mental Health Centers (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 3149, Nov. 20, 2017), the advisory duties are one of the duties of the Mental Health Center at △△△ City, and according to Article 5, the trustee of the Mental Health Center at △△△ City is under the direct direction and supervision of the market. In addition, the person subject to consultation is the defendant's friendship, and the person subject to consultation requests an assessment under the name of family opinions in appearance, but it cannot be deemed a personal request irrelevant to the public duties, which is requested to collect and discuss the countermeasures against the acts of thisCC by verbal abuse, etc. to the public officials, and thus, it may be deemed that the head F is an advisory duty, which is one of the duties of the defendant's general authority.

2) Whether it constitutes an abuse of official authority

The advisory procedure is to seek opinions from experts, etc. from the room, and it is possible to present opinions on the contents and direction of the advisory procedure or to re-examine or confirm matters requiring supplementation with respect to the advisory opinion already made in that process. Meanwhile, the advisory duty is to seek a judgment based on the medical knowledge of the headF, and is within the scope of the original authority of the headF, and thus, falls under the area within the scope of the headF’s independent authority, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s request has reached the abuse of authority unless it is evaluated as requiring a statement disregard

In addition, the former H did not mean that it should not be resolved as it is while delivering the Defendant’s request for correction to the FF. The actual headF, referring to the matters stated in the medical textbook, etc., rather than stating the Defendant’s request for correction, and referring to the matters stated in the previous evaluation text, and thus, it can be deemed that the Defendant presented his opinion. It is difficult to view that the Defendant urged or instructed the FFF to state a specific content that did not comply with his medical judgment.

Therefore, the Defendant’s ex officio exercise of this part of the previous advisory opinion does not indicate the seriousness of Byung and the necessity of hospitalization, and it is difficult to view it as an unlawful or unreasonable exercise of official authority. Considering the scope of work of the center as seen earlier, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s request for the official seal, etc. on the relevant document itself constitutes an unlawful or unreasonable exercise of official authority.

3) A portion of having the Gu H deliver the requested matters to the FF

An act of ordering the Gu H to deliver an opinion on modification of the written evaluation of evaluation or an official seal prepared by the FF or a request for the submission of the official seal to the Defendant’s opinion on the advisory act is nothing more than a factual act that assists in the exercise of the Defendant’s authority to deliver the Defendant’s opinion on the advisory act. The mere delivery of an act requested by the FF only as a delivery agent does not constitute an act of abuse of authority, unless seeking advice by presenting a modified opinion to the FF does not constitute abuse of authority.

G. Regarding the request and delivery of the results of the interview with the GuD, and the request for diagnosis and protection against thisCC

1) According to the records of this case concerning the request and delivery of the results of the Gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do. The fact that the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do

2) According to the records of this case, the examination of thisCC and the request for protection application made at the public health center of the △△△△△△△△△△ for the request of thisCC was explicitly rejected by the FF on the day, and the FF made a request for diagnosis and protection application in the form of public questioning to the effect that it is necessary to give an answer to the request by the FF on the day, and thus, it appears that it would have been agreed in advance between the FF and the LL. The public document does not compel the FF to conclude a specific conclusion, but it is already a civil petition and the legal guardian (GuD) is already proceeded with. In light of the fact that the Mental Health Center of △△△△△△△△△△△ has already filed a civil petition and there is no more meaningful meaning to review the application for diagnosis and protection of thisCC and to request an explicit answer, and in light of this, it is difficult to deem that the instruction on this part of the act constitutes an abuse

H. As to thisCC’s application for diagnosis and protection

1) Whether there exists a causal relationship

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 공소사실 기재와 같이 피고인이 2012. 5. 2.경 ☆☆구보건소장을 구HH에서 이LL으로 교체한 이후 직접 센터를 위탁 운영하는 ☆☆서울대학교병원을 찾아가 정신건강의학과 전문의인 하PP에게 이CC의 대응방안에 대하여 문의하였고, ☆☆서울대학교병원 병원장인 정JJ에게 전화하여 이CC의 입원에 관하여 협조를 구하기도 한 사실, 비서실장 윤BB도 ☆☆서울대학교병원 정신건강의학과 전문의 하QQ에게 이CC을 강제 입원시킬 수 있는지에 대하여 자문을 구한 사실, 피고인의 어머니 구DD이 윤BB의 도움을 받아 센터에 대하여 이CC의 진단과 치료를 방치할 경우 법적 책임을 묻겠다는 취지의 내용증명을 보낸 사실 등은 인정되고, 이에 비추어 보면, 적어도 피고인이 장FF에게 구 정신보건법 제25조 제1항의 진단 및 보호신청과 관련하여 사실상의 영향력을 행사함으로써 직권을 행사하였다고 볼 수는 있다.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to view that there is a causal relationship between the exercise of defendant's authority and the examination and protection application conducted by employees of the mental health center in this part, the F of this part, and △

(1) On June 20, 2012, the head of the FF explicitly rejected the request for diagnosis and protection, sent from the public health center of the Do, Do, Do, Seoul, to the mental health center of △△, and thereafter there is no material to deem that the defendant or leB forced the head of the F to perform any direct and specific act of compelling the examination and protection.

② On June 20, 2012, 2012, the head of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, the head of the Gu, the head of the Do, the public health clinic, the head of the Gu, the head of which refused the request for diagnosis and protection with respect to thisCC. After that, the Center received content-certified documents under the GuD name, the Center additionally became aware of various violent acts of thisCC, and the Center also received an objection with respect to the fact that it did not take any measures at the mental health center in the city, the head of the FF. Considering that it is a circumstance to suspect that thisCC is at risk of undermining himself/herself or others through additional documents submitted in the court, and the commencement of the procedure under Article 25(1) of the former Mental Health Act with respect to this BL and response plan by the attorney-at-law was judged to have no need to face the medical specialist. Since the face-to-face of the medical specialist before being hospitalized in the subsequent procedure, the head of the FF stated that the instant request for diagnosis and protection was filed without meeting.

(3) There is no obvious material to deem that there was an ex officio exercise of authority to request the FF to proceed with procedures different from determination on the requirements and procedures for the Mental Health Act before the diagnosis and protection application.

④ It is difficult to deem that the Defendant exercised a direct authority in relation to the examination and application for protection against the long-termF solely on the fact that the content certification under the name of GuD was sent to the FF, or that the leB helps the FF in the process of establishing the content certification. The FF states that the mother of thisCC stated that the content of the documents submitted to the Center was a critical cause for which the request for examination and protection was made with respect to thisCC.

2) Whether it constitutes abuse of authority or whether the FF has committed an act for which it is not obligated

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in the records of this case, i.e., the request for diagnosis and protection is not carried out in the position of the FF as the director of the mental health center, rather than in the position of the FF as the director of the mental health center, but is an act being carried out based on the independent status of the medical specialist of the mental health given by the law; even if the FF is in a position to follow the official instructions in the position of the director of the mental health center in △△ City, it is limited to local public health administration; and the diagnosis and protection application is distinct from this; and as seen earlier, it is not necessarily necessary to face face-to-face with the diagnosis and protection application; and there is no material to deem that the defendant or leB had ordered the FF to follow the diagnosis and protection application without face-to-face with thisCC; even if there is an act of exercising the official authority over the FF, the contents of the exercise of authority can not be deemed to constitute abuse of authority, regardless of the medical judgment and order of the FF.

Even if it is not so, as seen earlier, the phrase “an act that does not have any obligation in the crime of abuse of authority” means “an act that does not have any obligation as an individual’s internal area or psychological aspect.” The authority to apply for diagnosis and protection refers to an act that does not have any obligation as an individual’s internal area or psychological aspect. Although the Defendant or leB exercised any influence on the FF, it cannot be deemed that it violated the freedom of decision-making by the FF and caused the FF to perform an act that does not have any legal obligation.

I. Regarding the attempt to hospitalize thisCC pursuant to Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act

1) Illegality of the execution of hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was given a reply stating that RR by a mental health medical specialist does not directly observe thisCC at the request of the defendant, and that "it is recognized that accurate diagnosis of the symptoms is necessary due to the risk of harm to his/her own or others," under Article 25 (3) of the former Mental Health Act, the circumstance at the time constitutes "when it is recognized that the accurate diagnosis of the symptoms is necessary due to the risk of harm to a person suspected of having a mental health specialist as a mentally ill person under Article 25 (2) of the former Mental Health Act" and the fact that the defendant requested LL et al. to proceed with the hospitalization procedure is recognized.

However, as seen earlier, in order to execute hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act, a face-to-face diagnosis must be conducted by a psychiatrist who directly observes and evaluates the subject, and Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act refers to a follow-up procedure where an actual diagnosis has been conducted pursuant to Article 25(2) of the same Act. Therefore, the execution of hospitalization with thisCC is illegal as it is an attempt to execute hospitalization without diagnosis.

2) Whether the LL has attempted to be hospitalized under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to view that the LL used to board a vehicle on August 17, 2012 and move to the Jungwon Police Station is an act of seeking compulsory hospitalization by thisCC pursuant to Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act. Rather, it is difficult to deem that the LL used to establish thisCC and move to the Jungwon Police Station for the purpose of having the diagnosis conducted pursuant to Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act.

① At the police, the LL made a statement to the effect that “the degree of diagnosis is to be recommended,” and that “it was thought that the LL would have been forced to undergo a medical examination if CC wanted to receive a face-to-face medical examination,” and the prosecutor made a statement to the effect that RR would be forced to undergo a face-to-face medical examination without complying with the statement to the effect that she would be forced to undergo a face-to-face medical examination, and that she would be forced to undergo a face-to-face medical examination, and that she tried to proceed with the procedure under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act on the ground that she did not face-to-face medical examination. At that time, LL did not intend to be hospitalized, but it appears that the act stated in this part of the facts charged was required to undergo a face-to-face medical examination by the ○ Hospital.

② The FF stated that it was known that it would have known that it would be diagnosed on the ground between the site at the time, and that the initial reason was not the purpose of hospitalization at the Central Police Station at that time. In addition, the FF stated that, upon today’s medical examination, the FF responded that the she would not immediately leave the speech to the LL, and that the she would not leave the speech to the LL. In addition, even based on the statement itself, there is doubt as to whether the L would be between the fF and the fF in order to proceed with hospitalization at the Central Police Station at that time, since the statement itself stated that the fF would have had the speech undergo a diagnosis, and that the fF would be hospitalized in accordance with the result.

③ At the time of newM, thisCC stated that it is aware that it is trying to get diagnosis.

④ On the other hand, a letter of official request for accompanying a vehicle or mental health specialist, which appears to have been prepared at that time, is written by NewM under the direction of LL, and does not entirely state the purpose of executing hospitalization. Rather, it is explicitly stated that the request for a vehicle or mental health specialist is made for the purpose of “check request” according to the language and text of Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act.

⑤ In light of the fact that, prior to this part of the act, the LG had two police officers assigned for special guard to assist in the enforcement of hospitalization of thisCC, the LG rejected the request on the ground that it was an unlawful act, and that it did not request any other assistance as above at the time that was not yet possible, it is highly probable that at the time, the LG moved to the relevant place for other purpose than the enforcement of hospitalization.

(6) Even if it is determined that the RR reply in appearance at the time satisfies the requirements of hospitalization against thisCC by deeming it as materials that can satisfy the requirements of Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act, in order to conduct an act leading to actual hospitalization, the procedures for voluntary hospitalization and hospitalization by the legal guardian under Article 6(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act should be carried out, as well as the physical color of the medical institution for mental illness, the request for measures of hospitalization, and the approval of the medical institution for mental illness, etc. In addition, even upon examining the record, there is no evidence to deem that the LL has gone to the Central Police Station while taking such preparatory actions as required for hospitalization at the time.

3) As to the part that the LL, FF, and newM had the L, F, and newM enter the place where theCC exists.

This L is an act that satisfies the requirements of diagnosis required under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act by independent judgment different from the direction of leB. Moreover, taking measures to enable a mental health specialist to diagnose a person subject to diagnosis upon request of a diagnosis is an act planned under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act, and even if LCC had an intent to deliberate on thisCC depending on the circumstances when LCC resists the opinion, the act of escort to undergo a diagnosis and the exercise of physical power in the process are one of the methods of execution stipulated under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act, so it is difficult to evaluate this part of the act as unlawful or unfair.

4) Determination on the part requested to accompany a vehicle or mental health specialist

The reason why LL requested the accompanying of vehicles and mental health specialists is not for the attempt of the execution of hospitalization as seen earlier, but for completing the procedure under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act by having thisCC undergo diagnosis. In light of the status of ○○○ City Mental Health Center in charge of management of persons suspected of having mental illness in the region, it is difficult to evaluate that the act constitutes an unlawful or unjust act that abused official authority.

(j) Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced under the main sentence of Article

2. Violation of the Public Official Election Act concerning abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인은 2010. 6. 2.경 제5회 전국동시지방선거에서 ◇◇시장으로 당선되어 2010. 7.경부터 2014. 6.경까지 재직하였고, 2014. 6. 4. 제6회 전국동시지방선거에서 ◇◇시장으로 재선되어 2014. 7.경부터 2018. 3.경까지 연임하였으며, 2018. 6. 13.경 제7회 전국동시지방선거에서 ▨▨도지사로 당선되어 2018. 7.경부터 현재까지 ▨▨도지사로 재직 중이다.

피고인은 ① 2018. 5. 29.경 ○BS ▨▨도지사 후보자 토론회에 참석하여 다른 후보자 김BM의 ‘형님을 정신병원에 입원시키려고 하셨죠? 보건소장 통해서 입원시키려고 하셨죠?’라는 질문에 “그런 일 없습니다. 그거는 어머니를 때리고 어머니한테 차마 표현할 수 없는 폭언도 하고, 이상한 행동도 많이 했고, 실제로 정신치료를 받은 적도 있는데 계속 심하게 하기 때문에 어머니, 저희 큰형님, 저희 누님, 저희 형님, 제 여동생, 제 남동생, 여기서 진단을 의뢰했던 겁니다, 그런데 저는 그걸 직접 요청할 수 없는 입장이고, 제 관할 하에 있기 때문에 제가 최종적으로 못하게 했습니다”라고 발언하고, ② 2018. 6. 5.경 ○BC ▨▨도지사 후보자 토론회에 참석하여 “우리 김BM 후보께서는 저보고 정신병원에형님을 입원시키려 했다6)이런 주장을 하고 싶으신 것 같은데 사실이 아닙니다. 정신병원에 입원시킨 것은 형님의 부인 그러니까 제 형수와 조카들이었고, 어머니가 보건소에다가 정신질환이 있는 것 같으니 확인을 해보자라고 해서 진단을 요청한 일이 있습니다. 그 권한은 제가 가지고 있었기 때문에 제가 어머니한테 설득을 해서 이거 정치적으로 너무 시끄러우니 하지 말자 못하게 막아서 결국은 안 됐다는 말씀을 또 드립니다”라고 발언하였다.

However, the Defendant was trying to hospitalization thisCC at the △△ Mental Hospital around the end of March 2010. On March 2013, thisCC suffered from depression due to the aftermath of the relevant accident. On around November 2014, 2014, ParkV and LeeBN, who was denied, were hospitalized at the △△△ Hospital, and was not a medical doctor’s diagnosis or treatment at around November 2012, 201, and ParkV and LeeBN did not think that there was mental problem. The Defendant did not think of this mental problem to the △△△△△ Hospital, and the Defendant did not appear to have been hospitalized at the △△△○ Public Health Center head by several times until April 8, 2012, and the Defendant did not appear to have been subject to criminal punishment pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, and the Defendant did not appear to have been compelled to be hospitalized to the public health clinic of △△△, etc., and the Defendant did not appear to have been subject to criminal punishment for the Defendant’s order to hospitalization.

그럼에도 피고인은 ▨▨도지사 토론회 등에서 친형을 입원시키려고 하였다는 내용으로 사실대로 발언할 경우 낙선할 것을 우려하여 당선될 목적으로 위와 같이 피고인의 행위에 관하여 허위의 사실을 공표하였다.

B. Determination on the assertion on the terms of lawsuit

1) Summary of the assertion

This part of the facts charged contains contents that could give a judge an unreasonable prejudice, such as the defendant's personal family history, the defendant's psychological condition, and legal opinion on the law, which are not related to the specification of the facts charged or the facts constituting the elements of the facts charged, and thus, the indictment is null

2) Determination

This part of the facts charged are partly cited in the facts charged of abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights. As seen earlier, it is necessary to cite part of the facts charged of abuse of authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights in order to explain the fact that the defendant published is false, and it is also necessary to describe the background, motive, and progress of the

From this point of view, even if it is somewhat unnecessary or unreasonable to view that there is a clear statement in this part of the facts charged, it does not seem to have reached the degree that it may hinder the judge from understanding the substance of the facts charged by causing a judge’s prejudice.

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

C. Relevant legal principles

"False facts" under Article 250 (1) of the Public Official Election Act means matters inconsistent with the truth and are sufficient enough to have the elector correct judgment on candidates. However, in a case where important parts are consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the published facts, even if there is a little or exaggerated expression, it cannot be deemed a false fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do26, Mar. 12, 2009). Whether a certain expression of false facts is expressed should be determined on the basis of the overall purport of the expression, objective contents, ordinary meaning of words used, connection method of phrases, etc., comprehensively taking into account the overall increase in the number of electors (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8947, Feb. 11, 2010; 209Do8947, Feb. 11, 2010; 2009Do8947, Feb. 25, 2010).

In addition, as in the case of other election campaign, a candidate who participates in a joint debate held by a candidate for public office, presents only his/her own opinion or his/her argument consistent with the truth, and uses his/her opinion clearly and accurately in questioning or answering questions of other candidates, so that the elector can clearly grasp the quality, knowledge, and opinion of each candidate. However, unlike a campaign speech unilaterally expressed his/her opinion by preparing materials in advance, it is difficult to say that such expression has limitations due to the nature of a joint debate in which the answer, question, and answer are made between the candidates, i.e., interested and continuous, to the extent that the accurate decision of the elector is likely to be excessive, not intentionally distorted the opinions or remarks of other candidates, and thus, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of another candidate’s opinion or statement within the reasonable scope, and criticize or question the other candidate’s opinion or statement to the extent that it is unreasonable to see that the other candidate’s opinion or statement is inconsistent with that of the other candidate’s opinion or opinion without an inaccurate opportunity to answer or answer to the other candidate’s question. The same holds held that it is unreasonable or unreasonable.

D. Whether the Defendant’s remarks include “no Defendant had attempted to hospitalization thisCC at △△ Mental Hospital around the end of 2010”

검사는 김BM 후보자의 ‘형님을 정신병원에 입원시키려고 하셨죠? 보건소장 통해서 입원시키려고 하셨죠?’라는 질문에 ‘피고인이 2010년 말경에 이EE을 통하여 이CC을 입원시키려고 하였느냐’는 질문이 포함되어 있음을 전제로 공소를 제기한 것으로파악된다.

However, the opportunity for KimBM to make this part of the statement was to confirm the suspicion of the Defendant’s act of forced hospitalization to thisCC between April and August 2012, and the Defendant’s attempt of forced hospitalization to thisCC, which was around the end of 2010, was only filed by the investigative agency during the investigation process of the instant case, and there was no external indication at the time of the instant debate. KimBM stated to the effect that the Defendant did not consider the suspicion of hospitalization to thisCC as to the Defendant’s question at the end of 2010.

Therefore, it is clear that the question of Kim BM was not about the fact in 2010, and the defendant also understood that the question was about the fact that occurred before 2012. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had a perception of publishing false facts or publishing false facts.

E. Whether it constitutes a publication of false facts that the Defendant made a statement to the head of the public health clinic, etc. of the Do, Do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, from April 2012 to August 2012, issued an instruction for the process of hospitalization to forced hospitalization pursuant to Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act.

1) Facts of premise

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인은 이CC이 정신적인 질환이 있고 자신 또는 타인을 해할 위험이 있는 사람에 해당한다고 상당한 정도로 의심하고 있던 차에, 2012년 4월경부터 직접 또는 윤BB을 통하여 ☆☆구보건소장 구HH 등에게 이CC을 구 정신보건법 제25조를 적용하여 정신병원에 입원시킬 수 있는지에 관한 법률적, 행정적 검토를 하도록 포괄적으로 지시한 사실, ② 그에 따라 윤BB은 시청 공무원들을 상대로 ‘이CC이 악성민원을 반복하여 제기하고 있고, 그 행태에 비추어 정신에 문제가 있는 것 같다’는 취지의 진술서 등을 작성하게 하였고, 구HH는 ◇◇시 공무원들의 진술서와 이CC의 ◇◇시 홈페이지 게시물 등 이CC 관련 문건을 토대로 이CC을 구 정신보건법 제25조의 시장 등에 의한 강제입원 방식으로 입원하게 하는 것이 가능한지 여부를 센터장 장FF에게 자문하는 등으로 검토한 사실, ③ 구HH는 장FF에게 이CC의 치료가 필요하다는 내용의 문건 작성을 부탁하였고, 장FF은 ‘이CC이 인터넷 상에 기술한 내용 및 접촉한 사람들의 상황 설명이 사실이라는 전제 하에……조울병의 가능성이 높다고 판단되고……’등의 내용으로 평가문건을 작성하였는데, 피고인은 이CC을 정신병원에 입원시키기에는 평가문건의 내용이 부족하다고 보아 평가문건의 내용을 ‘조울병은 심각한 질병으로 입원이 중요한데, 지금 단계에서 이CC이 자신 또는 타인을 해할 위험이 매우 높다’는 취지로 고친 다음 구HH로 하여금 장FF에게 이CC의 평가문건을 다시 받아오게 지시한 사실, ④ 피고인은 그 후에도 구HH가 ‘이CC이 정신질환으로 자신 또는 타인을 해할 위험이 있다고 의심된다고 단정하기 어렵고, 배우자의 동의가 없는 한 시장 등에 의한 강제입원 요건이 되지 않는다’는 취지로 강제입원이 불가하다고 보고하자, 구HH에게 ‘보건복지부 고시에 정해진 여러 요건에 해당된다. 이CC을 정신병원에 입원시킬 수 있다. 시장 군수에 의한 입원이 가능하다’는 식으로 말하며 질책하기도 하였고, 구HH에게 ‘정신건강센터에 제25조에 의한 강제입원을 지시하라’는 식으로 다그치기도 한 사실, ⑤ 피고인은 ☆☆구보건소장을 구HH에서 이LL으로 바꾼 후에는 직접 센터를 위탁 운영하는 ☆☆서울대학교병원을 찾아가 정신건강의학과 전문의인 하PP에게 이CC 대응방안에 대하여 문의하였고, ☆☆서울대학교병원 병원장인 정JJ에게 전화하여 이CC의 입원에 관하여 협조를 구하였으며, 윤BB도 ☆☆서울대학교병원 정신건강의학과 전문의 하QQ에게 이CC을 강제 입원시킬 수 있는지 자문을 구한 사실, ⑥ 피고인은 또 브라질 해외 출장을 가기 직전에 이LL에게 구 정신보건법 제25조에 의한 입원이 가능하다고 판단되니 입원을 진행하라고 지시하였고, 브라질 출장 중에도 전화하여 동일한 취지로 지시하였으며, 윤BB도 이LL에게 전화로 입원절차를 진행하라고 재촉한 사실, ⑦ 이LL은 구DD이 센터에서 이CC의 정신과적 치료 관련하여 상담을 하였다는 것을 알고 센터에 면담 결과를 요청하였고, 구DD 이름으로 센터에 이CC의 진단과 치료를 방치할 경우 법적 책임을 묻겠다는 취지의 내용증명이 접수된 사실, ⑧ 이LL은 ☆☆○병원 서RR에게 이CC에 대하여 구 정신보건법 제25조 제2항에 의거하여 진단을 의뢰하였고, 비서실장 윤BB은 서RR으로부터 받은 진단의뢰에 대한 회신 문서를 바탕으로 수행비서 백GG, 이LL에게 이CC의 입원 집행을 지시한 사실, ⑨ 장FF이 이CC에 대하여 진단 및 보호신청을 하고 뒤이어 진단 의뢰를 받은 서RR이 대면진단이 없이 ‘진단 의뢰에 대한 회신’이라는 제목으로 ‘서류상 검토한 결과 자신 및 타인을 해할 위험이 있어 정확한 진단과 치료가 필요할 것으로 사료됩니다’는 의견을 밝히자, 피고인은 이를 구 정신보건법 제25조 제3항의 요건에 맞는 문서로 보아 ◇◇부시장이던 박BO의 절차의 중단을 수용할 때까지 이LL에게 계속적으로 구 정신보건법 제25조 제3항에 따른 후속 입원 절차 진행을 지시하고 독촉한 사실은 인정된다.

2) The impression that the Defendant’s statement gives to the right of retention

The above acts of the Defendant constitute the act of having the intent and purpose to hospitalization thisCC, and the Defendant, at least if the legal requirements are met, has the intent to exercise discretion to hospitalization under Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act, and is deemed to instruct the procedure of Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act as a market to proceed with the procedure of thisCC.

위와 같은 사실관계에다가 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 토론 방송을 보는 선거인의 입장에서는 피고인이 시장의 권한을 이용하여 친형인 이CC을 정신병원에 입원시키려는 행위를 하였는지에 관한 사실관계 여부를 확인하여 피고인이 ▨▨도지사가 되기 위한 자질, 도덕성 등을 갖추었는지에 관한 판단을 하려는 것이 주요 관심사이었을 것으로 보이는 점, 피고인의 친형 정신병원 입원 시도 행위가 법령에 따른 정당한 행위인지 여부는 사실관계가 먼저 규명된 다음에 2차적으로 후보자 선택의 판단에 영향을 미칠 요소라고 볼 수 있는 점 등을 고려하면, 피고인이 2012년 4월부터 8월까지 ☆☆구보건소장 구HH, 이LL 등에게 이CC을 구 정신보건법 제25조의 시장 등에 의한 입원 규정에 의하여 강제로 입원시키도록 지시하였고, ☆☆구보건소장 등이 위법한 일이라고 이행하지 아니하자 수회에 걸쳐 질책하면서 계속하여 입원 절차 진행을 지시하였음에도, 후보자 합동토론회에서 김BM의 ‘형님을 정신병원에 입원시키려고 하셨죠? 보건소장 통해서 입원시키려고 하셨죠?’라는 질문에 ‘그런 일 없습니다’고 답변한 것은 이 사건의 실체를 전혀 모르고 있는 유권자에게 마치 피고인(내지 ◇◇시)은 이CC의 정신병원 입원 시도와 관련하여 아무런 사실행위를 한 적이 없다는 인상을 심어 주고 그 결과 후보자에 대한 정확한 판단을 그르치게 할 수 있어 그 범위에서 피고인은 자신의 관여 사실을 적극 부인하는 방법으로 허위사실을 공표한 것으로 볼 수 있는 측면도 있다.

3) Whether Defendant’s remarks constitute publication of false facts

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, in particular, the intent of questioning and answering questions, the diversity of remarks, the situation at the time, and the characteristics of joint debates, etc., the Defendant’s answer, such as the statement in the facts charged, is an unclear statement that does not specify the existence of a specific act, and it is difficult to deem that the statement intentionally distorted facts to the extent that it would mislead the elector’s accurate judgment. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant published false facts as to the Defendant’s “act” without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence

A) The uncertainty of the specific act extracted through the answer;

The question of “I am or I am to be hospitalized” is one of the connected terms indicating the intent or desire to act, and the question of “I am to be hospitalized.” Thus, barring any other circumstance, I affirmed the Defendant’s assertion that I would have tried to hospitalize CC (or whether I would like to be hospitalized through the head of a public health clinic) and the Defendant’s statement was the part of the intent to hospitalize CC and, in relation to the specific act, it is merely a statement as to whether there exists no existence of what can be evaluated as an act with the above intent, and therefore, it is nothing more than a statement as to whether the Defendant’s act as to the Defendant’s act as to the publication of false facts, time, space, or specific past or present act, which is false facts about the Defendant’s act as to the publication of false facts.

b)the purpose of questioning and the guidance of answer;

김BM의 질문이나 주장이 구체적인 사실관계를 전제로 하지 않았다는 점은 다음과 같은 문제가 있다. 김BM은 피고인이 이CC에 대한 불법적인 입원을 시키려 하였느냐는 취지에서 질문을 한 것이라는 취지의 진술을 한 바 있고, 피고인은 김BM의 질문이나 의혹제기를 멀쩡한 사람에 대한 불법적인 정신병원 강제입원을 하려고 한 것은 아니라는 질문으로 이해하고 이를 부인하였다고 주장하고 있다. 이러한 관점에서 보면 피고인의 답변은 그 의도 자체에 대하여도 허위를 말하였는지 아닌지 달리 해석되고 평가될 수 있다.

C) The diversity of the speech

(1) The issue according to the defendant's admission

In light of the Defendant’s SNS materials and press materials revealed in the record, prior to the investigation of this case, the Defendant’s basic position on the part of the Defendant before the investigation of this case begins with 7 request from a public health clinic to examine whether the Defendant has a mental illness (not compulsory hospitalization) and △△ Public Health Center started the procedure of confirming whether the Defendant has a mental illness by administrative procedure. However, if the public health clinic did not have any political problem because it is under the jurisdiction of △ Public Health Center, and the examination procedure may arise, it does not allow the Defendant to compulsorily hospitalization, and the actual hospitalization was conducted by the wife and his/her father, which is similar to the Defendant’s statement. The above Defendant’s statement does not mention the facts unfavorable to the Defendant in relation to the hospitalization of thisCC, but merely mentions the facts favorable to the Defendant, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s act was not a specific act of compulsory hospitalization, but rather, to ask questions to the effect that he/she did not respond to such false facts.

(2) Non-existence of a direct purpose of hospitalization

As seen earlier, L has basically moved to the Central Police Station for the purpose of getting a diagnosis by citing thisCC. As such, there was no external act to compulsorily hospitalize thisCC. Ultimately, the procedure under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act is an internal controversy over illegality, etc. before reaching the stage of hospitalization, and eventually no substantial action for hospitalization has occurred. In addition, the question as to whether the procedure was “from one to another” refers to asking whether there was an act going beyond the preparatory act and leading up to the commencement of the actual execution. As such, if there was an answer that there was no act of having to be hospitalized on the ground that there was no act aimed at the direct implementation, it cannot be said that the fact was published in itself.

(3) It does not reach the stage of hospitalization under law.

As seen earlier, as long as the examination was not completed, the objective stage is only the one to complete the diagnosis under Article 25(2) of the former Mental Health Act, and under Article 6(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mental Health Act, the hospitalization may be conducted after the voluntary hospitalization or the legal guardian’s hospitalization. As such, the relevant stage is the one to undergo the diagnosis and to request or recommend the hospitalization by a person responsible for voluntary hospitalization or the legal guardian. Furthermore, the head of the △△△△△ public health clinic in the Gu of 1999, after requesting the diagnosis through the report of August 31, 2012, only after requesting the examination of the document, the examination was conducted, and it is necessary to have a face-to-face diagnosis by a mental health specialist in the implementation of the hospitalization procedure, but it is not possible to obtain a diagnosis without any legal basis to enforce the diagnosis. Accordingly, even if the procedure of Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act remains in the procedure to undergo the diagnosis, it cannot be concluded that the examination procedure was not completed without having been reported.

D) Characteristics of joint discussions

In the end, the comprehensive form of questions as seen earlier are unclear, so even if they are based on the answer, the meaning of the answer may be diverse or unclear, and the joint debate is premised on the formulation of ambiguous matters through the public debate on the assertion in its nature. As such, the supplementation of the questions falls under the share of the other party to the debate.

F. Whether the Defendant’s statement constitutes a publication of false facts to the effect that the part of the Defendant’s statement that “the proposal was finally unable to be made.” preventing the Defendant from speaking, which eventually became final, constitutes a publication of false facts.

This part of the facts charged is based on the premise that the procedure of hospitalization at a mental hospital under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act with thisCC was finally interrupted by the LL will.

그런데 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 피고인은 당시 ◇◇시장으로 구 정신보건법 제25조의 시장 등에 의한 입원절차의 진행 및 중단과 관련하여 종국적·최종적인 권한을 가지고 있는 점, ② 이CC을 구 정신보건법 제25조에 따라 입원시키려고 하였던 해당 절차의 진행은, 절차의 개시단계부터 피고인이 적극적·주도적으로 개입하여 시작된 절차에 해당하고, 절차개시 경위와 피고인의 ◇◇시장으로서 지위 및 권한을 고려하면 이 절차진행을 최종적으로 중단시킬 수 있는 사람은 피고인 외에는 없는 점, ③ 당시 ◇◇시 부시장이던 박BO의 진술에 의하면, 박BO는 ☆☆구보건소장이던 이LL으로부터 구 정신보건법 제25조 절차 진행과 관련한 심적 부담감 및 절차를 중단하고 싶다는 취지의 요청을 받고, 이LL에게 더 이상 추진하지 않아도 된다고 말한 후, 피고인에게 공무원들이 힘들어하고 정치적으로 무리가 있으니 그만해달라는 부탁을 하여, 피고인으로부터 그만하라는 취지의 답변을 받은 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 그 이후로 구 정신보건법 제25조의 법령 질의 절차가 진행되었을 뿐 해당 절차의 구체적인 집행 지시가 있었다고 볼 만한 증거는 없는 점을 고려하면, 이LL 보건소장이나 ☆☆구 보건소 측의 반대로 인하여 구 정신보건법 제25조의 절차가 원활하게 진행되지 않은 점이 있다고 하더라도, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인의 ▨▨도지사 후보자 토론회에서의 이 부분 발언이 허위의 발언이라는 점이 합리적 의심의 여지 없이 증명되었다고 보기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

G. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced under the text of Article 58

3. Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts related to the previous offense of inspector;

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Facts of premise

On May 10, 2002, between 10:59 and 11:26, the Defendant responded to the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○ District and the Defendant collected news report data on “the change of ○○○○○○○○ and preferential sale in lots,” from the Defendant’s office in the Defendant’s office in the legal office of E-A.B., “○○○○○○○ District” at the time of ○○○○○○○, a producer in charge of ○○○○○○○○, who attempted to communicate to ○○○○○ City Kim Jong-Y, the Defendant sent to ○○○○○○ Office’s office “I will see the phone as the prosecutor’s office.” The Defendant, at the time of ○○○○○○ City’s attempt to call, sent to ○○○○○○○○ Office’s office and then, notified ○○○-Gu public prosecutor’s name, “I will be connected,” and “I will know to see the public prosecutor’s name and development.”.

On May 10, 2002, at least 1:28, 2002, ○BS KimS in charge of the above attorney's office, and 2BP directed the twoBS to prepare for recording, using the mobile phone received from ○○BS for business purposes, and KimY respondeded to telephone communications. Then, ○BP called ○○○○○'s cell phone, and called ○○ KimY's phone, "I have the phone to obtain confirmation on the thickness of the market in the process of investigating not during investigation, and I have the phone to obtain confirmation on the thickness of the market, and I wanted to obtain confirmation on that part from the red president and the golf with the market manager." The ○○○ Office's phone was called as the time when I wanted to make detailed statements on this part.

As above, the Defendant explained to the least BP’s entry into the currency, and explained to the least BP the summary of the additional questions about KimY, such as “a conflict,” and “gying,” the following: (a) the Defendant’s entry into the currency; and (b) the description of the general question and additional questions to be asked about KimY as above; and (c) the maximum BP made an inquiry to the ○○○○○○ District in Do, in accordance with the matters notified by the Defendant; (d) the developments leading up to the change of the use of the ○○ District in Do; (e) the relation between the Red Chairperson and the prosecutor; (e) the relation between the change of the use of the ○○ District in ○○○ District; (e) the relationship with the Red Chairperson and the prosecutor; and (e) the relationship with the prosecutor, as well as the reason for delaying the investigation of the accused case, and (e) the answer was made within the YA.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with the largest BP, exercised his authority by misrepresenting himself, and as a result, on July 1, 2003, the Suwon District Court sentenced a fine of KRW 1,500,000 to a public official qualification or an intentional act, etc., which became final and conclusive on December 24, 2004.

2) Criminal facts

No person shall publish false facts about the place of birth, family relation, status, occupation, career, property, act, act, organization to which he/she belongs of a candidate, support from a specific person or specific organization, etc. in favor of a candidate, his/her spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, lineal ascendant or descendant, career, career, property, act, organization to which he/she belongs, or others in favor of the candidate by means of speech,

피고인은 2018. 5. 29. 23:00경 서울 ○○○구 ○○○○○로 **에 있는 ○BS 스튜디오에서 진행한 “2018 지방선거 ▨▨도지사 후보 ○BS 초청 토론회”에서 검사 사칭 여부에 대한 ♤♤♤♤당 김BM 후보자의 질문에 “제가 한 게 아니고, 피디가 사칭하는데 제가 옆에 인터뷰 중이었기 때문에 제가 그걸 도와주었다는 누명을 썼습니다”, “저는 검사를 사칭해 전화를 한 일이 없습니다. 피디가 한 거를 옆에서 인터뷰 하고 있었다라는 이유로 제가 도와 준 걸로 누명을 썼습니다.”라고 답변하고, 이어 추가시간을 요청한 뒤 “○○○ 특혜분양사건이라고 기억하시는 분들 많으실 것입니다. ○○○ 특혜분양사건을 제가 추적해서 폭로했습니다. 그래서 제가 고소당했지요. 어떤 모 방송에서 저를 인터뷰를 했는데 인터뷰를 할 때 전화가 걸려 온 거예요 시장에게서. 그래서 그분이 전화로 내가 어디어디 검사인데 사실대로 얘기하라 이렇게 이야기했죠. 저는 일보고 있었습니다. 이거를 제 사무실에서 인터뷰 중에 한 것을 걸어서 제가 도와준 걸로 됐다는 것 말씀드리고요.”라고 부연 발언하였다.

However, in fact, the maximum BP did not call from the defendant Kim Y during an interview with the defendant and misrepresented him/her with the appearance test regardless of the defendant, but did not call with Kim Y, as in the above premise, the name of the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office who received the voice message from Kim Y, and asked him/her about the summary of the question to be asked, and the most BP started Kim Y and call by misrepresenting him/her with the above appearance test, and provided explanation by stating or blocking additional questions in the domains, and thereby exercising its authority by misrepresenting the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office in charge of criminal cases between the defendant and Kim Y.

As a result, the Defendant published false facts about the candidate’s career or behavior in favor of the candidate for the purpose of winning the election.

B. Relevant legal principles

A statement of fact as an element of the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to an expression of opinion, the object of which is value judgment or evaluation, and the expression refers to a statement of fact in time, spatial and specific past or current facts, which can be proved by evidence. Therefore, even if a statement of fact appears to have indicated one opinion or comment by stating the subject and act and at the same time, considering the context before and after the expression and the circumstances at the time when the expression were made, it is difficult to understand the core meaning of the expression to be generally accepted as an unspecified, and there is room to view it differently by its readers, it shall not be deemed a statement of fact, and the context of appraisal or evaluation shall not be deemed a statement of fact, and if the expression is deemed to have indicated one’s opinion or comment, it shall not be deemed that the expression is a mere statement of fact 20,000 if it is deemed that it conforms with the meaning and purport of the former Supreme Court’s opinion or opinion, it shall not be deemed that the expression is an ordinary one’s opinion or opinion.

C. Criminal facts and the defendant's assertion acknowledged in the case of 2002 Gohap113 decided Nov. 13, 2002 (hereinafter "final judgment of the inspector's name case") which became final and conclusive, Suwon District Court △△△△ branch court, and the judgment of the defendant

1) According to the records, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”). The Defendant’s Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendant’s Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendant’s Nonindicted Party 2.

2) In the trial process of a public prosecutor's name case, the Defendant asserted that ① at the time, the most BP asked the public prosecutor's name and inform the public prosecutor of the case, but the BP knew about the case, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Public Prosecutor's Office was not the public prosecutor who used the horse but the main prosecutor of the case that was conducted between himself and KimAY, and ② he was moving to the book where the computer was located at the time of the call, but did not inform him of the matters that were to be asked separately in the monetary process. However, the Defendant did not accept such assertion and was found guilty of the above facts constituting the crime.

3) Meanwhile, this part of the facts charged is not based on the premise of this part of the facts charged, but based on the facts charged in the final judgment of the case called the inspector's name, taking into account the fact that the facts charged are written differently from those acknowledged in the final judgment of the prosecutor's name case, and in particular, considering the fact that the least BP, unlike the facts charged, misrepresented the prosecutor's office before arrival in the defendant's office and called on the part of the Kim AY market, it seems to have been recognized as having been partially different from the facts charged.

D. Whether the Defendant’s remarks publicly announced false facts about the Defendant’s career and act

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 공소사실 기재와 같이 ○BS ▨▨도지사 후보자 토론회에서 ♤♤♤♤당 김BM 후보자의 검사사칭 여부에 대한 질문에 “제가 한 게 아니고 피디가 사칭하는데 제가 옆에 인터뷰 중이었기 때문에 제가 그걸 도와주었다는 누명을 썼습니다”, “저는 검사를 사칭해 전화를 한 일이 없습니다. 피디가 한 거를 옆에서 인터뷰 하고 있었다는 이유로 제가 도와 준 걸로 누명을 썼습니다”고 발언한 사실은 인정된다.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize that the defendant published false facts as to the defendant's career and act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) At the time, the maximum BP, KimAS, and YangBS related to the Kim YY market, found the Defendant for the purpose of an interview with the “○○○○○○○○○○○○ area and the preferential sale case in lots,” refers to the Defendant’s act of gathering information and gathering information with the intent to gather news or obtain information. In addition, the entire process of collecting information on a case in which a person is called the Defendant at the time of a interview is either the interview itself or the interview was in place. In addition, the whole process of collecting information on a case in which a person is called the Defendant at the time of a interview and the public prosecutor’s name or questioning may be the premise.

2) There is no statement as to how the Defendant’s speech is evaluated as an inspector’s name due to the specific contents of the interview, and on the sole basis of the fact that there was such a statement, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant publicly announced the fact that the highest BP had caused the Defendant to misrepresentate the prosecutor while committing an act unrelated to the inspector’s name. In particular, the Defendant published the election campaign bulletin published around that time, by asking the Defendant for the name of the prosecutor in charge and the important matters of the case during the interview of the Defendant, and by making the Defendant known at the end of the legal dispute, the Defendant published specific facts during the interview, such as stating “the Defendant’s name and the important matters of the case during the interview of the Defendant, which would eventually have been decided as an inspector’s name at the end of the legal dispute.” In light of this, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant publicly announced that the Defendant

3) In light of the fact that the twoBS stated in the investigative agency at the time that “the defendant was working on the computer book because of the case at the time when the defendant was a litigation case, the recording of the prosecutor’s name phone was commenced, and the defendant again made the document preparation after five minutes,” the twoBS appears to be a false statement that “the defendant was working on the document related to the litigation case as an attorney at the time when the highestBP made a call for the inspector’s name, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the statement was a false statement that “the day was reported” at that time.

4) While the highest BP puts the Defendant’s speech to Kim Y, the part of the Defendant’s statement that “the lowest BP received from Kim Y,” in itself, appears to be different from the fact. However, in light of the fact that the act of receiving the voice message and the act of receiving the phone was continued at the time, the case occurred long, and there was no reason for the Defendant to make a false statement on this part, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant intentionally made a false statement because this part of the statement is highly likely to have made a false statement rather than the Defendant’s intentional act, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant intentionally made a false statement.

5) The phrase “a reputation” used in the sense that the name is not a fact, but a reputation that makes it more satisfy, and the expression to the effect that the name is written as an inspector’s name is eventually a penuous that the Defendant was sentenced and punished by the judgment as an inspector’s name was unreasonable or sound. Moreover, the mere expression that the Defendant’s name was written cannot be deemed as a statement of fact made by the Defendant in the course of the instant trial for misrepresentation of the prosecutor’s name.

6) The fact that the Defendant’s judgment was led to the failure to conduct an inspection is close to the evaluative statement without the evaluity, and there is no part to know the specific facts by itself. In other words, the meaning is very diverse as to whether to deny all the acts listed in the crime, to deny part of the fact, or to recognize the fact, or to deny the legal evaluation thereof, but the legal evaluation thereof is inappropriate. Thus, insofar as the Defendant did not make a false statement of other specific facts that are difficult to be compatible with the facts premised on the final judgment, it cannot be said that the Defendant would have concluded that he made a statement that BP made a misrepresentation with the Defendant regardless of the Defendant at the time of such expressive act. In addition, such expressions are difficult to identify the core meaning to be generally accepted from the Cheonger’s standpoint because the specific contents, date, place, purpose, method, etc. of the expression are not specified.

7) In a case where the Defendant, at the time of debate, made a statement that is close to the above evaluative expression, the other party could have confirmed the position of the Defendant as to more specific facts through additional questions to supplement the contents of the debate, given the nature of debate in which multiple candidates make inquiries and answers. However, as at the time of debate on this part, there was no question as to the Defendant’s position in relation to the individual facts pertaining to this part, and the Defendant’s statement was not a stage to regard the Defendant’s statement as an expression of specific facts. Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the expression that the Defendant’s statement was written without the Defendant’s individual assertion on this portion is not until the publication of the specific facts as to the final judgment, but remains within the extent of the Defendant

E. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced under the text of Article 58

4. Violation of the Public Official Election Act by publishing false facts about the achievements of the Doldong Urban Development Project;

A. Summary of the facts charged

(i) Publication of false facts using the election campaign bulletin;

피고인은 2018. 5. 중순경 ○○시 ○○구 ○○○로 *** ○○○빌딩에 있는 피고인의 선거사무소에서 선거공보물을 제작·배포하면서 선거공보물에 “[결재 한 번에 5,503억 원 번 사연] 결재 한 번으로 5,503억 원을 벌었다면 믿으시겠습니까? ◇◇시에서 실제로 벌어진 이야기입니다. (중략) ◇◇시는 개발이익금 5,503억을 고스란히 시민의 몫으로 환수했습니다. (중략) 이 중 920억 원은 □□동 지역 배후시설 조성비에, 2,761억 원은 1공단 공원 조성 사업비로 사용되었고, (후략)”라고 기재한 뒤 2018. 6. 2.부터 6. 3.경 사이에 그 책자형 선거공보물 5,262,380부를 ▨▨도선거관리위원회를 통해 유권자들에게 배포하였다.

However, the structure of the Defendant’s urban development project in △△-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, in which the Defendant had been employed in △△-dong-dong-dong-si, was established by establishing a special purpose corporation (SPC) at the private consortium consisting of △△ City Development Corporation, Han Bank, National Bank, etc., and the development project was implemented by raising funds necessary for development at the private consortiums, and performing the construction of the infrastructure in △-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si and the site park site construction project at the expense. In addition, the development profit of KRW 50,30,000 on the election day was not reverted to △△-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-

On the other hand, in the case of the cost of creating the hinterland facilities in 92 billion won, it is not only the estimated construction cost, but also the estimated construction cost, which is not only the determined construction cost, but also the cost of constructing the hinterland facilities on the day on June 13, 2018, which is the day of the election day, and the amount executed as the cost of installing the hinterland facilities is merely about KRW 900,000,000, such as the design cost, and there was no fact that the relevant development gains or the development gains related to the

In addition, 276.1 billion won of the cost of creating the site of the 1st Corporation was only spent on June 13, 2018, including land compensation and PF loan fees, and only KRW 125.4 billion, which is the day of the election day, was not commenced due to the expansion of the scheduled site size of △△△ support surrounding the relocation of the application company to △△△ branch and the request for provisional reservation of the Park Construction Project, etc. In addition, the Park Construction was not commenced due to the commencement of the lawsuit against △△△ branch, which was the right holder of the land of the 1st Corporation prior to the implementation of the project in this case, filed a lawsuit of damages amounting to KRW 251.1 billion against △△ branch, which was the right holder of the land of the 1st Corporation prior to the implementation of the project in this case, and thus, the relevant civil lawsuit had been used as the cost of creating

Nevertheless, the Defendant stated the above contents in his election campaign bulletin and distributed it through the election commission, thereby publicly announcing false facts about the candidate’s act in favor of the candidate for the purpose of being elected.

(ii) the publication of false information on an election campaign price;

피고인은 2018. 6. 11. 17:00경 ○○시 ○○동에 있는 ○○사거리에서 진행된 ▨▨도지사 후보자 선거유세연설 중 피고인의 연설을 청취하는 불특정 다수의 유권자들에게 “(전략) 자그마치 얼마를 번지 아십니까? 자그마치 5,503억 원을 한 푼도 안 들이고 ◇◇시 수입으로 만들었습니다. (중략) 그래서 5,503억 원을 벌어가지고 제가 신나게 썼습니다. 1,000억은 그 주변에 터널 만들고 도로 만드는 데 썼습니다. (후략)”라고 발언하였다.

However, the development gains amount of KRW 50.3 billion that is expected to be reverted to △△ City was merely an agreement between △△ City Development Corporation and private consortiums, and the development gains amounting to KRW 50.3 billion on the day of the election day were not accrued to △△ City until June 13, 2018. The development gains amounting to KRW 50.5 billion was not accrued to △△ City. In the case of 92 billion cost for the construction of facilities behind the hinterland area in △dong-dong, the development gains amounting to KRW 92 billion was nothing more than the determined construction amount, but not only did the construction cost for each hinterland facility, but the executed amount was merely KRW 90,000,000, or there was no fact that the relevant development gains or development gains accrued

Nevertheless, the Defendant published false facts about the candidate’s act in favor of the candidate himself by means of a speech for the purpose of election by making the above statements to many unspecified voters.

B. Relevant legal principles

“False facts” under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act means matters inconsistent with the truth and are sufficient enough to have the elector make an accurate judgment on candidates. However, in a case where the material part is consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the published facts, even if there is a little or exaggerated expression that differs from the truth in detail, it cannot be deemed a false fact. Whether a certain expression is false or not should be determined on the basis of the overall impression of the expression, comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the expression, objective contents, ordinary meaning of the words used, connection method of the words, etc., on the premise that the general elector has an ordinary method of expressing it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1202, May 14, 2015).

C. Determination

1) Progression of △dong Urban Development Project and restitution of development gains

A) △△ City’s investment in 10% by △△ City’s 100%, and the private business entities and the △△ City Development Corporation, which will play a role in the investment, etc. in the project expenses by concrete methods, have also made a special purpose corporation (50% of shares ratio in Sungnam City Development Corporation + 1 week, 50% of private business entities - 1 share) and will proceed with the project.

B) △△ City Development Corporation: (a) recruited a private business entity in △△dong Urban Development Project; (b) had established the standards for public invitation in order to conduct a park project of 256.1 billion won from the public invitation stage of the private business entity as a means of securing development gains in advance; and (c) received a rental house site (A11 block); and accordingly, the private consortium comprised of one bank, national bank, etc. was selected as a private business entity by accepting the relevant conditions.

다) 이에 따라 ◇◇도시개발공사와 민간 컨소시엄은 사업비로 제1공단 공원화사업(2,561억 원 상당의 사업비8)+ 지하주차장)을 진행하고, 임대주택부지(1,822억 원 상당의 A11 블럭)9)또는 배당금을 받기로 한 후, 특수목적법인 ◇◇의뜰㈜를 설립하여 사업시행자 지정을 받고 개발 사업을 진행하였다.

라) 그 후 □□동 도시개발 사업을 진행하면서 위 사업 구역 외에 기반시설(북측 터널조성, 남측 진입로 확장, 배수지 신설)을 ◇◇의뜰㈜의 부담으로 만드는 것으로 인가조건이 변경되었다.

마) 한편, 제1공단 공원화 사업과 관련하여 위와 같은 개발이익 환수 구조를 보장할 목적으로 처음 □□동 도시개발사업을 진행할 당시에는 제1공단 공원화 사업을 사업 자체에 포함시켜 「◇◇ □□동·제1공단 결합도시개발사업」을 진행하였으나, 이후 제1공단 부지와 관련한 소송 때문에 사업 전체에 문제가 생길 우려를 고려하여 이를 분리하여 「◇◇ 판교대장 도시개발사업」을 진행하게 되었다. 그리고 그 이행을 확실히 하기 위하여 ◇◇의뜰㈜로부터 이행확약서 및 부제소특약확약서를 받았다.

바) □□동 도시개발사업의 개발이익 환수구조는 ① ◇◇시에서 ◇◇도시개발공사와 사업에 필요한 자금을 조달하는 등의 역할을 맡을 민간컨소시엄이 함께 특수목적법인 ◇◇의뜰㈜를 설립하여 사업을 진행하되, ② ◇◇의뜰㈜에서 제1공단 공원화 사업(공원조성사업 2,561억 원 및 지하주차장) 및 구역 외 기반시설 사업(북측 터널조성, 남측 진입로 확장, 배수지 신설)을 하고, ③ ◇◇의뜰㈜로부터 ◇◇도시개발공사가 1,822억 원 상당으로 평가되는 임대주택부지(A11 블럭) 또는 같은 금액 상당의 배당금을 받을 수 있게 하는 구조이다. 즉, 장래에 상당한 개발이익이 발생할 것을 예상하여 미리 사업을 수행하는 ◇◇의뜰㈜에서 일정한 사업비가 소요되는 사업을 하고, 임대주택부지 또는 현금을 받을 수 있게 정한 형태이다.

2) Details of the report that the Defendant received in connection with the Cheongdong Urban Development Project

According to the records, the Defendant received a report related to the restoration of the development profit of the △dong development project in order to carry out a press conference on March 2017, and the main contents thereof were used for a park project (park creation project 256.1 billion won, underground parking lot development cost 20 billion won), and the development profit amounting to 274.2 billion won on the north side tunnel development cost, and the development profit was used for 60 billion won on the north side, 26.6 billion won on the south side, 6 billion won on the extension of the access road, 18.2 billion won on the south side, and 18.2 billion won on the leased apartment site. The contents of the report were thereafter utilized as the basic material for publicity and election publicity related to the △dong development project.

(iii) the accuracy of expressions expressed in election campaign bulletins and election campaign bulletins;

앞서 본 □□동 도시개발사업의 개발이익 환수구조에 의하면 제1공단 공원화 사업 및 구역 외 기반시설 사업의 경우 ◇◇시 또는 ◇◇도시개발공사가 ◇◇의뜰㈜로부터 돈을 받아 사업을 진행하는 구조가 아니라, □□동 도시개발사업으로부터 개발이익이 발생할 것을 기대하면서 사업을 수행하는 ◇◇의뜰㈜에서 비용이 소요되는 다른 사업(제1공단 공원화 사업 및 구역 외 기반시설 사업)을 하게 하는 구조이다. 즉, ◇◇시가 재정을 부담하여야 하는 사업을 ◇◇의뜰㈜에서 대신 진행하도록 하여, 실질적으로 ◇◇시가 이익을 얻도록 하는 것이다. 기본적으로 임대 주택 용지와 관련하여 현금으로 수령할 수 있는 부분을 제외하고는 ◇◇시 측에서 돈을 받는 구조가 아니기에 엄밀한 의미에서 선거 공보물 및 선거 유세에서의 표현, 특히 ◇◇시에서 돈을 벌었고, 이를 특정 용도에 사용하는 것이라는 취지의 표현은 정확한 표현이라고 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, when this part is based on the defendant's report that he received, it is correct in the form that the 1st public corporation's park project that is scheduled to be used as 276.1 billion won in order to △△ City and the infrastructure project outside the zone that is scheduled to be used as 92 billion won in order to be expressed in order to △△ City. In addition, it is correct in the form that it is intended to secure the development interest of 50.2 billion won in total by allowing the same amount as the leased apartment site or the same amount as the apartment site or the same amount in accordance with the choice of △△△ City Development Corporation.

4) Whether the crime of publishing false facts is established

As seen earlier, although there are somewhat inaccurate or inappropriate parts among the descriptions of the election campaign bulletin or the expressions in the course of taxation, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, each of the expressions is a case where important parts are consistent with objective facts, and it is merely a case where there is a little difference between truth and truth or a little exaggeration in the detailed contents, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a false fact is published, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently.

가) 해당 표현에 있어 가장 중요한 부분은 □□동 도시개발사업으로 인하여 5,503억 원 상당의 이익을 ◇◇시 측에서 얻게 되었는지 여부이다. 그리고 이 부분은 비록 추산치가 포함되어 있으나, ◇◇의뜰㈜에서 2,761억 원이 투입될 예정인 제1공단 공원화 사업, 920억 원이 투입될 구역 외 기반시설 사업을 진행하기로 하고, 1,822억 원 상당의 임대 주택용지 또는 현금을 ◇◇도시개발공사 측에서 받기로 하였고, 위와 같은 사업을 하게 되는 것은 사전적으로 미리 정해놓은 것이므로 결과적으로 ◇◇시 측에서 해당 사업을 통하여 5,503억 원 상당의 이익을 얻게 될 상황은 만들어진 상태이므로, 그러한 이익을 얻었다는 것은 허위라고 보기 어렵거나, 적어도 피고인이 이에 관하여 허위라는 인식을 가졌다고 보기는 어렵다. 그리고 위와 같이 5,503억 원 상당의 이익을 받는 방법이 정해져 실행만이 남은 이상 그 이익에 관한 표현을 ‘환수하였다’, ‘벌었다’, ‘수익으로 하였다’ 등으로 표시하더라도, 그것이 명시적으로 현금을 받았다는 취지의 표현이 아닌 한 위와 같은 이익 확보 내역을 급부가 단축된 것으로 이해하고 다소 과장된 표현으로 사용하였다고 볼 것이지 이를 허위의 사실을 공표한 것으로 볼 것은 아니다.

나) ‘사용하였다’ 또는 ‘썼다’는 표현도 ◇◇시의 부담으로 2,761억 원과 920억 원이 지출되어야 할 사업이 ◇◇의뜰㈜ 측의 비용 부담으로 진행되기로 정해진 것이라는 측면에서 볼 때 시민들이 직관적으로 이해하기 쉽게 표현을 한 것으로 볼 것이지 이를 허위의 사실을 공표한 것으로 볼 것도 아니다.

C) In particular, in the case of partial amount of infrastructure charges outside the district, the estimated value was merely a significant decrease in the actual cost, and the estimated value itself also has an inaccurate aspect, such as data calculated as KRW 88 billion. However, if the development gains are to be recovered in the form of a project instead of a specific project instead of a kind, the development gains recovered will eventually be expressed as an estimated cost incurred in the performance of the relevant project. Furthermore, inasmuch as the Defendant received a report at KRW 92 billion, even if the estimated amount was erroneously calculated, it is only a matter of a side that failed to accurately report the estimated amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an intentional act with the Defendant’s belief and publicity that the Defendant would recover the development gains.

D) As seen earlier, the fact that the issue of the site of the court and the prosecutor’s office, etc. scheduled to be established in the vicinity of the park and the lawsuit of compensation for damages surrounding the site of the first public corporation is separate from securing development gains in this part, and as seen earlier, the “used” and “written expression” are not deemed as a completed expression, but as long as the permissible division division can be seen, the above circumstance does not affect the falsity of expression by the Defendant.

E) Considering that the Defendant’s expression of the details related to the infrastructure project outside the relevant zone as KRW 100 billion appears to be a similar amount to KRW 100 billion, the Defendant made an oral explanation to the extent of memory. Since 50.3 billion, the total amount at the time was accurately expressed, it cannot be deemed as an act with intent to publish false facts.

바) 피고인은 이 부분 공소사실 기재 행위 이외에 ▨▨도지사 선거를 하면서 다양한 선거 홍보 및 유세활동을 하였는데, 그 과정에서 제1공단 공원화 사업이나 구역 외 기반시설 사업이 진행 중에 있음을 명시하거나, 1,822억 원이 장래의 수입인 점을 명시한 표현을 하기도 하였다(이 부분 공소사실의 김포시 유세 부분에서도 제1공단 공원화 사업에 관한 발언은 장래형 발언이 되어 공소사실에서 제외된 것으로 보인다). 이와 같은 점을 보더라도 피고인이 그 표현을 통해 현실적인 개발이익의 확정이나 귀속의 의미를 부여하여 유권자들에게 혼동을 주기 위한 의도에서 공소사실과 같은 표현을 사용한 것이 아니라, 개발이익의 확보 현황과 사용처를 강조하여 표현하려는 차원에서 이 부분 공소사실과 같은 발언을 하였다고 볼 여지가 크다.

D. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced under the main sentence of Article

1) Unlike Paragraph (2) of Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act, Article 25(3) of the same Act provides that the Mayor, etc. may proceed with the hospitalization procedure at his/her discretion, so the relevant provision of the Enforcement Decree is in conformity with the basic concept under Article 2(5) of the former Mental Health Act, which is a discretionary act, and the status and role of the legal guardian under Article 22 of the same Act, taking into account the basic concept under Article 2(5) of the former Mental Health Act and the status of the legal guardian under Article 22 of the same Act, the Mayor, etc. shall be deemed to have stated matters to be considered

2) It is understood that in relation to the measure of hospitalizing a person who has not undergone a face-to-face diagnosis in the Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4415 Decided February 23, 2001, the pertinent legal guardian suggested that he/she can proceed with the procedure under Article 25 of the former Mental Health Act with his/her mental health specialist (at the time when he/she is a psychiatrist), it is necessary to take face-to-face measures in finding the person subject to face-to-face examination in the process of this procedure.

3) Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act (amended by Act No. 25(3))

4) Meanwhile, according to Article 25(3) of the former Mental Health Act, the head of a Si, etc. is the subject of hospitalization. However, it is apparent that the hospitalization itself is a measure taken by a medical institution as the principal agent, and the third party market, etc. is the status of requesting hospitalization ( Accordingly, Article 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Mental Health Act expresses that the head of a Si, etc. is requesting hospitalization measures pursuant to the above provision).

5) Since then, 2BT also appeared to be a luxa, and CC also was diagnosed with a luxa.

6) According to the evidence, the “inhospitalized” of the indictment appears to be a clerical error.

7) It is written that the “voluntary diagnosis of a mental disease” was requested.

8) The amount to be reduced based on KRW 256.1 billion when circumstances, such as the reduction of the created area, etc. occur, shall be the profits of △△ City Development Corporation.

9) Giving preferential payment to the remainder after deducting the value of supply determined within the appraised value of the A11 block site at the time of supply at a fixed supply value of KRW 18.2 billion;