Grounds for exclusion of illegality provided for in the proviso of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

Even if another candidate slanders a candidate by openly pointing out facts by means of a speech for the purpose of getting him/her elected, if the alleged facts are true and are related to the public interest, the proviso of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts is prescribed, and the actor believed to be true even if there is no proof that the alleged facts are true, and if there is a reasonable reason to believe it, there is no illegality.

Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

Supreme Court Decision 92Do3160 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2188), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1035 delivered on June 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2199), Supreme Court Decision 93Da18389 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 194), Supreme Court Decision 94Do237 delivered on August 26, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2573)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon High Court Decision 95No687 delivered on January 26, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if another candidate slanders a candidate by openly pointing out a fact in a speech way for the purpose of getting elected, if the alleged fact is true and is related to the public interest, the proviso of Article 251 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts is stipulated. It is discussed that the actor believed that the alleged fact is true even if it is not proven that it is true, and if there is a reasonable reason to believe it, it is not illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do237, Aug. 26, 1994; 92Do3160, Jun. 22, 1993).

However, according to the records, as to whether the facts alleged by the defendant in this case are true and true and not there is no proof that it was true, and the defendant believed that there was considerable reason to believe such facts, the facts alleged by the defendant through a speech are as follows. The purport is that "I can drink by a member of the National Assembly of Yeongi-gun with one nation's own body, drink with one woman with a flaton, play while playing without dancing, and there is a video tape recorded this." The video tape with the defendant was recorded at the hotel of Japan by the National Assembly of Yeongi-gun, and according to this, I cannot say that the defendant was unaware of the above facts that it was not a flaton, but a member of the National Assembly of Yeongi-gun, and that it was not a flat, and that the defendant was unaware of the above facts that flat, and that flat had not been aware of the fact that flat was done by the defendant's body, and that flat was done by flat.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence as discussed in the judgment of the court below, or it cannot be viewed that the judgment of the court below infringes on the freedom of speech as provided in Article 21 (1) of the Constitution. Thus

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)