The case affirming the facts charged in violation of the Public Official Election Act that the issuer of a local newspaper distributes a newspaper that is disadvantageous to a specific person who is anticipated to run in the City/Do Governor by means other than ordinary means;

As to the facts charged of the violation of the Public Official Election Act that the issuer of a local newspaper has issued more than 2,00 through 3,000 copies, which are the ordinary number of ordinary copies and distributed free of charge a newspaper that carries articles unfavorable to a specific person expected to be published by the Mayor/Do Governor despite the fact that the issuer of a local newspaper did not distribute a newspaper or other publication containing articles related to the election by any means other than ordinary means, the case held that the above publication and distribution cannot be readily concluded as an exceptional method of distributing a publication by deviating from the method and scope of ordinary circulation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. In the case of the publication of the above article, there was a lot of newspaper published several times, and there was a lot of advertising expenses which are more than three times more than the ordinary number of newspapers, and in the case of the publication of the above article, there was only 50 persons who pay subscription fees, and thus, most of the newspapers were distributed free of charge.

Articles 95(1) and (2), and 252(1) of the Public Official Election Act

Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3877 Decided January 19, 2001 (Gong2004Do8969 Decided June 23, 2005) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8969 Decided June 23, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1285) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4492 Decided August 11, 2008

Defendant

Maximum Constitution

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant is the representative director and publisher of the ○○○ newspaper with an office in Chungcheong City (hereinafter omitted) and no one shall distribute publications including newspapers, etc. on which articles related to the election are posted in a way other than ordinary ways. However, around December 25, 2009, the Defendant issued the said newspaper office with the following title: “Unqualified for a candidate for a democratic party or impulse market”, “disqualified for a candidate”, “non-indicted 1 member’s 80 million Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's 80 million Do governor's Do governor's 80 million Do governor's Do governor's 80 million Do governor's Do governor's 20,000 Do 165 million Do 20,000 Do 160,000 Do 20,000 Do 20,000 Do 260.

2. Determination:

According to the Public Official Election Act, no one may distribute newspapers, etc. containing news articles other than those under the Public Official Election Act (Article 95(1) of the Public Official Election Act), and the term “distribution by ordinary means” in this context refers to the publication and distribution within the previous method and scope (Article 95(2) of the Public Official Election Act). However, in interpreting and applying Article 95(1) of the Public Official Election Act that restricts the freedom of election campaign to ensure the fairness of election, the freedom of election campaign should not be excessively infringed, and the fundamental contents of the people’s freedom of political expression should not be infringed. Thus, in order to constitute “other methods than ordinary methods” as mentioned above, it is reasonable to view that a publication ought to reach the extent that it can be seen as a method of distributing public relations by deviating from the original method and scope of a publication being conducted for the original purpose of publication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3877, Jan. 19, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2003Do964, Jun. 29, 2005).

Therefore, the defendant issued 10,00 copies of the newspaper of this case and distributed 10,00 copies to 10,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 10,000 copies of the newspaper of this case, and the defendant issued 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 10,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the newspaper of this case to 20,000 copies of the advertisement of this case to 20,000 copies of the advertisement of this case to 20,201.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

Judges Hun-Ba (Presiding Judge) Dominction