2015Do1379 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm T

U, V, and W

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2014No351 Decided January 21, 2015

July 26, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on omission of debt, (1) pursuant to Article 65(1) and (6) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 13617, Dec. 24, 2015; hereinafter the same), a candidate may prepare one kind of book-type election campaign bulletin for election campaign. If a candidate submits it to the competent Si/Gun election commission, the election commission shall send it to each household within his/her jurisdiction. According to Article 65(8)1 of the Act, the status of property, which is the open data of the candidate, shall be inserted on the second page of the book-type election campaign bulletin, and the total amount of each property of the candidate’s spouse, lineal ascendants and descendants, and his/her own lineal ascendants and descendants

In addition, Article 250(1) of the former Public Official Election Act provides that a candidate shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won, in order to benefit the candidate by making a speech, broadcasting, newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or any other means, and a person who has published or made another person publish false facts about his/her spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, or sibling's property, or who holds a propaganda document containing false facts for the purpose of distributing a propaganda document.

The legislative intent of Article 250 (1) of the former Public Official Election Act is to ensure the fairness of election by publicly announcing false facts and regulating acts that affect the right judgment of electors.

There is no separate provision defining "property" under the above provision. Pursuant to Article 49 (4) 2 of the former Public Official Election Act, a person who files an application for candidate registration shall submit a report on property subject to registration under Article 10-2 (1) of the Public Official Election Act. Thus, the meaning of property subject to registration under the Public Official Election Act can be interpreted as a basis for property subject to registration under the Public Official Election Act. The disclosure system of candidate information under Article 49 of the former Public Official Election Act aims to ensure the citizen's right to know and the exercise of citizen's right to vote by disclosing information on the candidate's occupation, academic background, career, etc. as well as property status, military service records, recent payment of income tax, property tax, aggregate land tax and delinquent tax, and criminal records, etc. to the elector (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5945, Oct. 29, 2009).

(2) Article 10-2(1) of the Public Service Ethics Act provides that a person who intends to become a candidate for an election shall submit a report on the property subject to registration under Article 4 to the competent election commission when he/she registers the candidate. Article 4(1) and 4(2)3(e) provides that a person shall file a report on the property subject to registration under Article 4 as the property subject to registration. Article 4(1) and 4(2)3(e) provides that a person shall be entitled to registration as the property subject to registration, and Article 4(3)5 provides that the method of calculating or marking the value

(3) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s obligation against the obligee H is the Defendant’s inherent obligation, and that the obligee’s obligation against the obligee Company I is the joint and several liability, and that the obligation against the obligee Company I was not excluded from the obligation, which is the property status that should be published on

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court, ① Defendant’s obligation to Defendant’s creditor H is inherent obligation, ② Defendant’s obligation to Defendant’s creditor company X’s joint and several surety obligation to Defendant’s loan obligation, or Defendant’s obligation to Defendant’s creditor, etc. was decided on January 12, 2007 and January 17, 2007, and the judgment became final and conclusive. At the time, Defendant X was in an obscure state, where the location of the principal obligor X was unknown, and there was no possibility that Defendant could actually perform the joint and several surety obligation due to the financial ability of X X, or that Defendant X may perform the obligation to compensate for the Defendant even if Defendant fulfilled the joint and several surety obligation.

In full view of the above circumstances, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the property status, joint and several sureties, the debtor’s duty to provide benefit and the guarantor’s liability, the right to indemnity, offset, the principle of no punishment without law

2. The remaining grounds of final appeal are ex post facto review of the decision of the appellate court, and thus matters not subject to a review in the appellate court are not attributable to the scope of the trial in the appellate court, and thus, the defendant cannot be considered as the grounds of final appeal for reasons other than those not alleged in the appellate court as grounds of appeal or subject to a review by the appellate court ex officio (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2104, Jun. 30, 2006).

The remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant are not legitimate grounds of appeal, since the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal did not state them as grounds of appeal or the court below did not state them ex officio.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-in