(a) The meaning of the election campaign as provided in Article 38 of the Act for the local council members;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as constituting an advance election campaign in violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle of advance election campaign

(a) The election campaign of a local council member as provided in Article 38 of the Act refers to the act of obtaining or making another person obtain voting for the purpose of direct voting in a specific election.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as constituting an advance election campaign in violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle of advance election campaign.

(a) Article 38 of the Act; (b) Articles 180(1)1 and 39 of the same Act of the local council members of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Do344 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1783) 92Do1085 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192, 3051)

A and one other

Defendants

Attorney B

Gwangju High Court Decision 91No1142 delivered on May 1, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant C is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Defendant A’s appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Defendant A’s ground of appeal

Examining the record, the fact-finding by the court below against Defendant A is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

This paper addresses the statement statement D and E of the preparation of the judicial police assistant, but according to the records, it does not interfere with the fact-finding as stated in its decision even if it excludes these evidence.

In addition, as stated in its reasoning, if the same defendant was to run for the election of the Jeju-do Council member on June 20, 1991 in the election of the Jeju-do Council member on May 3, 1995, and if 22 persons holding the voting district attend the friendly meeting of the Do Council decision held on May 3, 200 and asked it well, it shall be deemed that the court below made a prior election campaign under Articles 38 and 39 of the Act on the Election of Local Council Members, and the application of Articles 180 (1) 1 and 39 of the same Act is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the election campaign. Therefore, there is no reason for all the arguments.

Defendant C’s ground of appeal

1. The lower court recognized that Defendant C, the wife of Defendant A, visited the G pharmacy on May 1 of the same year, and gave a warning to the purport that “I am well asked to go to this Do Council because I am well, I am well asked to go to the same Do Council.”

2. The election campaign as provided by Article 38 of the Local Council Members Act refers to the act of having a candidate obtain or have a vote for the purpose of direct voting in a specific election (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do344, Apr. 28, 1992). According to the records, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant C visited G pharmacy in advance to carry out an election campaign by evidence cited by the court below.

Rather, the defendant, who was examined as a suspect in the police, did not want to engage in an election campaign, but did not want to do so, and GJ has made a statement to the same effect that he was frequently used (the investigation record No. 253-4), and the prosecution also made a statement to the same effect (the investigation record No. 331), and the court of first instance also stated that he used the same kind of drug when he needs to do so (the trial record No. 36,40-41). In addition, H, a pharmacist of the above pharmacy, testified that he was aware that the same defendant had been killed in the court of first instance at the court of first instance (the trial record No. 65).

In addition, even after examining the evidence cited by the court below, it is not consistent with or consistent with the specific contents of the statement that the defendant made to the above H, and the circumstances leading to such remarks are also inconsistent.

3. If Defendant C found his pharmacy to obtain the vote of H, who is a pharmacist of the above G pharmacy, for the direct purpose of the election of Defendant C, and made the remarks as stated in its reasoning for the same purpose, it may be recognized that Defendant C carried out a prior election campaign. However, if Defendant C expressed that he would run a drug and that he would well request the above Party A as his husband, and that he would request it as his wife, it would be deemed that it was a formal person in light of the language practice or example of the people in our country, and it is difficult to view that he carried out an election campaign, and therefore, the lower court should clarify this point.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles on advance election campaign, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the grounds for appeal are limited to this scope.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C is reversed and remanded, and the appeal by Defendant A is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)