logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.12.10 2015도7342
공직선거법위반
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, “false facts” as provided by Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to matters inconsistent with the truth, and it is sufficient that the elector has the possibility to make an accurate judgment on the candidate. Whether a certain expression is false or not should be determined on the basis of the overall increase given by the elector in terms of the objective contents of the expression, the ordinary meaning of the used words, and the connection method of the words, on the basis of the overall purport of the expression, on the premise that the elector has an ordinary method of expressing false facts.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3642, Jun. 9, 2011). Meanwhile, since the disclosure of false facts in the crime of publishing false facts under the aforementioned provision constitutes the content of the elements of the establishment, it is necessary to recognize that the content of the actor’s intentional act is false.

As long as it is difficult to know or prove such subjective perceptions from the outside due to its nature, the existence or absence of such subjective perceptions must be determined on a normative basis by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s educational background, career, social status, background of publication, time of publication, and the ripple effect objectively anticipated by the Defendant, based on the contents and existence of the publication fact, the existence and content of the explanatory material, and the source and

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do26, Mar. 12, 2009). The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and based on the fact of recognition, the Defendant implemented a supplementary request by the Central Urban Planning Committee on the cancellation of a development restriction zone of a L development project or future.

arrow