Defendant

Defendant

Maximum salary;

Law Firm Gyeong-woo, Attorneys Han Dong-han et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2006Gohap73 Decided January 16, 2007

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The charge of violating the Public Official Election Act due to false publication among the facts charged in the instant case is acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Fact-finding, etc. (as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to publication of false facts)

(1) On June 5, 2002, at the third debate held by the YMCA (hereinafter “the third debate held in 2002”), Nonindicted Party 1 made another speech to the effect that “I would not use the official fee,” but did not make a statement to the effect that I would not use the official fee for personal purposes. As such, the Defendant did not make a false statement to the effect that I would not use the additional official fee for his statement to the effect that I would not use it for the purpose of personal purposes. Thus, at the fourth debate held in the Ansan-dong MBC on May 25, 2006 (hereinafter “instant debate”), the part stating that “I would not use it entirely at the time of this case’s debate with the thickness of our candidate 1, and that I would not use the additional official fee for his statement to the effect that I would not use it for the purpose of “I would not use it for the purpose of I would not use it for the purpose of I would not use it for the public interest at the time of the debate.”

(2) In addition, since the operating expenses of the literature 3 market were based on the annual budget of 2005, the amount of KRW 53 billion per year, the business promotion expenses of KRW 20 million per year, and the business promotion expenses of KRW 250,000 per year were distributed within the extent of annual upper limit (250,000 per year), the head of the Si allocates the budget for each policy within the extent of KRW 40,000 per year, and it is possible for the Defendant to change the amount of the other policy promotion expenses or to provide other budget promotion expenses after obtaining approval from the City Mayor, and the amount of the business promotion expenses of KRW 100,000 per year from the budget of the above 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000.

(3) The Defendant’s statement of this case was carried out in the process of policy discussions on appropriate and efficient operation of the budget, such as business promotion expenses, as it was a statement in the broadcast debate in which the Defendant’s request and arbitration of each candidate’s statement is allowed, rather than unilaterally delivering his claim. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had a purpose to defeat the other party’s candidate in making the instant statement, and even if some false facts are included in the Defendant’s statement, it cannot be said that there was illegality in light of the purport of the joint debate system under the Public Official Election Act that guarantees the freedom of expression in the election process to give the elector an opportunity to choose the candidate’s eligibility by guaranteeing the freedom of expression in the election process, and the purport and contents of the instant statement.

B. The point of unfair sentencing

Even if the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant are recognized as guilty, in light of the fact that the instant advance election campaign was conducted seven months before the election day, and the remarks in the debate of this case are not entirely reasonable, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement at the debate of this case is a false fact intentionally and without any grounds for the purpose of falling the other party by shooting on the image of Nonindicted Party 1, the other party candidate, and that there was such a speech in TV discussions with a large ripple effect, and that there was a serious division and confrontation due to black publicity without any grounds of the Defendant, and that there was a fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 80,000,00 as a result of a prior election campaign even before the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Summary of facts charged as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts

Notwithstanding that a false fact is not published with respect to a candidate unfavorable to the candidate by means of a speech, broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or any other means, with the intention of preventing the election from being elected;

In fact, at the time of the third round-up election, Nonindicted Party 6, a designated debate in the debate of the candidate's early conference of the YMCA sponsored by the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, asked questions about information disclosure and administrative reform on the premise that "in order to realize clean local autonomy and efficient self-government administration, the disclosure and preparation of various minutes, and the reduction of the preliminary budget, etc., are required" as common inquiries.

The Defendant responded that “I will transparently disclose this fact that this fact was made in the issue of the market price and the market price at the time of the market.” On the other hand, Non-Party 1, regardless of the work, understood “the market price” as the money separately compiled by the head of the agency to be used at will, regardless of the work, shall not disclose the market price in the same case and make it open to the public and make it open to the public, regardless of any item, the amount of the market price shall not be the percentage of the loss to the market price. This reply is to be written to the family members who are difficult to our city, and to be written to the city finance.”

Accordingly, the Defendant thought that Nonindicted 1 had mistakenly understood the printing fund to the extent of so-called so-called “stening,” and argued to the effect that “stening the printing fund would not help the employees of the city or take an attitude in the finance of the city because it was disposed of without using it in any other place, unlike in the case of private enterprises,” and Nonindicted 1 responded to the purport that “the printing fund would not have been carried out in the printing fund.” The Defendant stated that “The printing fund would not have been carried out in the printing fund.” The Defendant was written inside, and that he would not use “the printing fund” as a personal sign if he knows that he would not be carried out in the Chinese budget.

In other words, the defendant again speaks to the purport that "the market is not personally used by him," and the non-indicted 1 finally stated that "the problem is not personally used." The author will not use the sales fund. However, if the horse market is located, it would be fright to use it for public use in the market room. However, the problem is the point where the market is used for any personally in the market room, and it would be fright to use it for each department in the market room and in the market room."

Ultimately, Non-Indicted 1 responded to the purport that he will not execute the "market public expenses" in a voice, such as personal use, and did not promise to not use business promotion expenses within a normal sense, and the Defendant also discussed to the purport that there is a problem in the understanding of the concept of the "market public expenses" of Non-Indicted 1 based on his public service experience, such as the head of the Daegu regional environmental office, etc., although he was well aware that the purpose of Non-Indicted 1's speech is to not execute the "market public expenses" in a voice, it is nothing more than that of Non-Indicted 1

As a result of the above debate, for the general public who are well aware of the concept of business promotion expenses in a normal sense and understand so-called so-called "market promotion expenses" as negative money, it is judged that Nonindicted Party 1, who used the expression "to disclose the details of use of the market expenses" rather than the Defendant who responded to the simple statement that "to disclose the details of use of the market expenses," had a significant impact on the success of the election at the time of being known as a candidate more cleanly.

An inquiry to the effect that the 4th door-to-door Market Chairperson's fourth door-to-door Market Chairperson's debate held in the election of the candidate for the election of the candidate for the election of the Sim-dong MBC was discussed again with the non-indicted 1 who was candidate for the above election, and that the general public may know about the process of organizing and executing business promotion expenses in a normal sense and understand the so-called "market public expenses" as being unfairly negative money, and that Non-indicted 1 used the expression "to use" in the debate held in the past four years, and that "Non-indicted 1 was wasted by using the market's business promotion expenses for four years while he was working in the market, with his promise that Non-indicted 1 was inside the market in the past four years," thereby raising a question to the point of integrity issue of Non-indicted 1's integrity.

In fact, from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 206, when Non-Indicted 1 was in office in the literature market, Non-Indicted 1 used as the literature market by Non-Indicted 1, the total amount of KRW 165,121,00, KRW 607,00, KRW 607,00, KRW 90,00, KRW 90,588,00, and KRW 90,00,00, in total, KRW 71,916,00,00, which is the total amount of the policy implementation expenses executed during the same period in the literature city, the total amount of KRW 71,268,00,00 used by Non-Indicted 1 for each department excluding KRW 90,58,00,00, KRW 610,680,000 for the remaining departments for the implementation of the policy of each department, the head of each department under his jurisdiction has used the policy of each department for the implementation of the budget.

The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs’s directives such as the “Guideline on the Preparation of Local Government Revenue and Expenditure Budget”, the budget bill and settlement of accounts, and the details of the information disclosure of market business promotion expenses among the notices posted on the website website for literature viewing, the policy execution expenses are not the head of a local government but the budget per local government itself, and the policy execution expenses are divided and executed by each department, and the policy execution expenses are merely about KRW 100 million per year. In particular, as the Defendant directly perused the contents of the budget and settlement of accounts, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that the market’s business promotion expenses and the business promotion expenses for each department were separately compiled and executed as above.

Under the premise that the actual status of the use of business promotion expenses for the promotion of policies by each department and the authenticity of the above official data are “business promotion expenses for the promotion of policies by each department” without confirming objective data, such as submission of data, etc., on the authenticity of the above official data, and that the business promotion expenses for the promotion of policies by each department are “business promotion expenses for the market used by the market”, with the aim of preventing Nonindicted Party 1, who was candidate

At the fourth door-to-door Market Election Broadcast Debate held by the Ansan-dong 709-1 located in Taedong-dong 25 May 2006, 2006, the 4th door-to-door Election Broadcast Debate, following the completion of the discussion on the subjects proposed in advance, such as the introduction of the candidate's pledge and the debate on the pledge, common questions and discussions, individual questions and discussions, etc., using the given time in the order of the last free debate;

Then, the starting point of this case is that we will come up with the festest 4 years before this case. 4 years later, we look at our candidate thickness and 1.200 million won per year." Then, the phrase “I have written 300 million won per year,” and the phrase “I have written 1.2 billion won per year,” and the phrase “I have not pointed out that I have used a large number of 30 million won per day,” but I have expressed Belgium that I have given 10 seconds more than 10 seconds, “I have written 40 million won more than 10 billion won per day,” and I have expressed my view that I have expressed that I would have used 10 billion won more than 10 billion won per day of 1 year and will not use 4 years more than 10 billion won of 38 billion won of 1 year.”

As above, the non-indicted 1, who was asked to the effect that he wasteed a large amount of “sacrine public expenses”, was sacrine and sacrineed and sacrineed, and sacrine 100,000 won per day, and sacrine 100,000 won per day, and sacrine sacrine sacrine sacrine . . . . . . .. .. .) The fact that sacrines were divided into this public interest and private history, and the sacrines were supported so that our employees can work without interruption in the Si project. The sacrines that sacrines were written are frighten, . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 'the materials that sacrine used the materials for personal reasons.

피고인이 문경시에 요구하여 제출받은 자료는 위와 같이 전혀 없음에도 불구하고 재차 “정말 우리 현직 시장을 거치신 분이 정말 저는 이해가 안 됩니다. 판공비가 뭡니까? 업무추진비입니다. 4년 전에도 제가 말씀드리니까 업무추진비 한 푼도 안 쓰시겠다고 말씀하셨습니다. 그런데 제가 3억, 연간 3억이고, 4년간에 12억이라는 것은 문경시 정보요구 자료에서, 문경시에서 저한테 제출한 자료입니다. 그 점을 굳이 부인한다고 그러면 제가 무슨 말씀을 드리겠습니까?”라며 마치 공소외 1 개인이 4년 동안 12억 원의 ‘판공비’를 사용하였다는 피고인의 주장이 문경시에서 공식적으로 제공한 자료에 의하여 뒷받침되고 있는 것처럼 말하여 앞서 질문한 내용을 재강조하면서 공소외 1의 근거 없는 질문이라는 답변을 반박함으로써, 소위 ‘판공비’에 대하여 막연히 부정적인 인식을 가지고 있는 일반 시민들에게 방송을 통하여 공소외 1이 4년 전에 정상적인 의미에서의 업무추진비를 전혀 사용하지 않겠다고 공약하고도 이를 어기고 시장으로서 공소외 1 개인이 업무추진비를 4년 동안 12억 원이나 사용하였다는 취지의 허위사실을 공표하였다.

B. Judgment of the court below

(1) Determination as to the part of the instant “statement”

(A) Whether the phrase “1” part is false or false

(1) In light of the contents of Non-Indicted 6’s inquiry, the court below held that it is necessary for the head of the non-Indicted 1 to make public opinion to realize clean local autonomy and efficient autonomous administration, such as disclosing and preparing various minutes, and reducing the core budget. It would like to hear the opinions of the candidate regarding the disclosure of information on the implementation justice and the administrative reform. It appears that the general public would have used the printing fund for personal purposes or have recognized it as a waste budget, on the premise that it would not be used by the head of the non-Indicted 1’s opinion on the disclosure of materials regarding the use of the printing fund for each of the above purpose, and that it would be difficult for the head of the non-Indicted 1 to use the “non-Indicted 1’s opinion to make public” as an expression “non-Indicted 1’s opinion to use the printing fund for each of the above purpose.”

(B) Whether there was a perception of the falsity of the part “1”

The court below found that the defendant was the counter-party candidate to whom Non-indicted 1 and Non-indicted 2 had been in charge of making an additional inquiry about the second issue at the time of the election campaign for the candidate for the YMCA 3rd door competition market, and that the defendant's first interrogation of the defendant's prosecutor's office "Non-indicted 1 did not know the concept of the advertising campaign at the time of the above third door competition market candidate's debate and knew about the money which the Mayor would have made at the time of the above third door competition market, and it was known that he did not use his money, and it was known that he would have led to a clean and clean correction without using the advertising campaign, and that it was hard to find that the defendant had made an objective effort to verify the defendant's status as the candidate's candidate's campaign in this case, and that it did not have a big influence on the election result at the time of the election." In particular, the court below determined that the defendant's first time to have made an objective statement about the defendant's candidate's status as the candidate's campaign in this case should not have been made.

However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons. In other words, it was pointed out to the effect that “Non-Indicted 1’s remarks that she will not be able to use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 202,” which is “Non-Indicted 1 would not use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 202,” but that Non-Indicted 1 would have been aware that it would not be able to use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 20 years, and that it would have been difficult for the Defendant to use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 20 years, without considering the fact that the Defendant would not use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 20 years or more, it was pointed out that it was difficult for him to use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 1 to use it for non-Indicted 1’s own for the purpose of understanding that it would not have been able to use the advertising campaign at the time of debate 20 years or more, but it was difficult for him to use it for the non-Indicted 1 to use.

(2) Determination on the part regarding “B’s speech” in the instant case

(A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the portion of “the speech” part of Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Party 1 used KRW 1,200,000,000, in total, for business promotion expenses used as the door-to-door market from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006, is merely 315,916,00 won, and thus, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to the effect that “the cost of business promotion used as the door-to-door market for four years as the door-to-door market,” which is not consistent with the truth, is a false statement that “the cost of business promotion used as the door-to-door market in which Nonindicted Party 1 used KRW 1,20,000,000 for four years as the door-to-door market.”

(B) Judgment of the court below

The above judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the defendant interpreted the meaning of the above speech in the debate of this case as "the individual non-indicted 1 as a literacy market has used the sales fund of KRW 1.2 billion for 4 years." The facts charged of this case also are premised on the defendant's statement "B" in such purport, and the above judgment is not acceptable for the following reasons.

In a case where a public prosecution is instituted on the premise that a defendant's speech at a specific place is false, the whole of the speaking in the procedure should be identified and judged as a whole, not based on the simple and detailed form of the speaking or the word. In a case where the meaning of the speaking in question is unclear or diversely understood, the normal meaning and usage of the language, the context before and after the speaking in question is made, the purpose and intention of the speaking in question, the circumstances in which the speaking in question was made, the anticipated reaction and attitude of the people hearing the other party to the speaking, etc., shall be clarified, and after clarifying the true meaning of the speaking in question, the judgment of the court below that it is necessary to proceed to the determination of the authenticity of the speaking in question.

그런데 피고인, 공소외 2의 경찰, 검찰 및 원심법정에서의 각 진술, 공소외 7, 8, 9, 4의 각 검찰 진술, 수사결과서(참고인 공소외 5 전화조사), 공소외 2 작성의 참고자료(수사기록 제888쪽, 이는 공소외 2가 이 사건 토론회 개최에 즈음하여 토론회를 대비하여 만든 자료이다), 연도별 업무추진비 계산 메모(수사기록 제911쪽, 이 사건 토론회 전에 문경시의 업무추진비 예산 규모를 파악하면서 작성된 것이다), 각 녹취록(수사기록 제103, 247쪽), 거리연설문(수사기록 제1,169쪽, 2006. 5. 26. 문경시 모전동 소재 대동아파트 입구에서의 거리연설문)의 각 기재를 종합하여 보면, ⓛ피고인은 이 사건 토론회가 개최되기 전에 피고인의 예산담당 선거참모였던 공소외 2로부터 문경시의 부채관련 문제 등과 아울러 공소외 1이 4년 전 월급과 판공비를 쓰지 않겠다고 한 공약의 이행 문제, 업무추진비 예산의 규모 및 사용처에 관한 문제, 다른 지방자치단체에 비하여 턱없이 부족한 교육재정 지원 문제 등을 토론회에서 언급하는 문제를 보고받고, 이에 관하여 토의하는 과정에서 업무추진비 예산과 대비하여 교육재정 지원 문제를 거론하기로 결정한 사실, ②피고인은 이 사건 토론회에서의 자유토론시간에 공소외 1에게 “저, 이건 좀 4년 전의 얘기에서 출발이 됩니다. 이 4년 전에 우리 공소외 1후보께서 이 판공비를 전혀 안 쓰겠다 그러는데, 4년이 지난 지금 자료를 보니까 1년에 3억씩 12억을 썼습니다. 그래서 이렇게 판공비를 많이 썼다는 문제 지적이 아니라, 그러면서 교육에 대한 것은 3천 8백만 원 밖에 안 썼는데, 그렇다면 판공비를 하루에 백만 원씩 썼다는 얘기입니다. 그렇다면 교육비 예산은 좀 더 …”라고 질문을 하다가 30초의 질문시간이 경과하여 사회자가 피고인의 질문을 중간에서 차단하고 공소외 1에게 답변을 요청하는 바람에 그 질문을 마무리하지 못한 채 마치게 되었고, 이에 대하여 공소외 1은 “예, 지금 어디서 근거를 두셨는지 모르지만, 아마 그런 어디서 누구한테 받은 자료인 줄은 모르지만, 잘못된 자료입니다. 오늘, 이 시간 이후에 내일 아침에 문경시청에 가서 한 번 그 자료를 다시 받아 보세요. 그것은 아무런 근거가 없고, 허위 자료이기 때문에 제가 대답할 가치조차 없습니다. 하루에 백만 원 제가 이 판공비를 썼다는 것은 그건 아마 우리 문경시청 전 직원이 아마 다 웃을 겁니다. 그러니까 그런 근거 없는 자료를 가지고 말씀하시면 안됩니다. … (중략) … 저는 이 공익과 사를 엄연히 구분하고 판공비를 다 우리 직원들이 사업할 수 있는 데로 다 나눠서 우리 직원들이 시사업에 차질 없이 할 수 있도록 지원했습니다. 제가 쓴 돈은 아마 거기 있을 겁니다. … (후략)”라며 강하게 항의하며 반발하자, 피고인은 보충질문을 하면서 “정말 우리 현직 시장을 거치신 분이 정말 저는 이해가 안 됩니다. 판공비가 뭡니까? 업무추진비입니다. 4년 전에도 제가 말씀드리니까, 업무추진비 한 푼도 안 쓰시겠다고 말씀하셨습니다. 그런데 제가 3억, 연간 3억이고, 4년간에 12억이라는 것은 문경시 정보요구자료에서, 문경시에서 저한테 제출한 자료입니다. 그 점을 굳이 부인한다고 하면 제가 무슨 말씀을 드리겠습니까?”라고 반박하고, 다시 공소외 1은 ‘그 자료가 잘못되었고 자신은 당연히 써야 될 업무추진비만 사용하였다’는 취지로 답변한 사실, ③피고인은 이 사건 토론회 개최 후인 2006. 5. 26. 문경시 모전동 소재 대동아파트 입구에서의 거리연설에서 “제가 시장이 되면 예산을 알뜰살뜰, 짜임새 있게 쓰겠습니다. 불필요한 예산은 과감하게 줄이겠습니다. … (중략) … 지난해 교육비로 우리 문경시에서 지원한 것은 고작 3,800만 원에 불과합니다. … (중략) … 우리 문경시의 자료를 보니까 공소외 1시장 재임 지난 4년간 문경시의 판공비 예산이 12억 가까이 됩니다. 판공비가 4년간 12억이라고 하면은 1년에 3억이 되지 않습니까, 이것은 거의 하루에 100만 원 가까이 되는 돈입니다. 제가 시장이 되면 불요불급한 행사는 과감하게 줄이겠습니다. 판공비 예산을 삭감하여 교육비 예산을 대폭 늘리겠습니다. 교육 관련 조례도 추가적으로 새로이 마련하겠습니다. … (후략)”라는 내용의 발언을 하고, 2006. 5. 29. 선거유세에서도 “… 판공비는, 판공비가 1년에 3억씩입니다. 4년에 12억입니다. 1년에 3억이면 한달을 25일로 잡으면 얼마나 될 거 같습니까? … 판공비 또 써야 되죠, 다른 데도 씁니다. 그러나 교육비 예산 열배 늘어봐야 3억 … 밖에 안됩니다. …(후략)”라는 발언을 한 사실, ④한편, 피고인과 공소외 2는 이 사건 토론회 전에 그 준비를 하면서 문경시 공무원인 공소외 4, 7, 8, 9, 5(그 중 공소외 4는 문경시 예산담당공무원이다)에게 시장의 업무추진비 예산의 규모가 3억 원 정도 되는지를 물어보았는데 당시 그 구체적인 자료나 근거를 제시하면서 묻거나 위 공무원들에게 구체적인 근거나 자료를 요구하였던 것은 아닌 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 이와 같이 당초 별개의 문제로 검토되었던 업무추진비 문제와 교육재정지원 문제가 토론회 준비과정을 거치면서 교육재정지원 문제를 업무추진비 문제와 결부시켜 제기하기로 결정하고, 실제 이 사건 토론회에서도 업무추진비와 교육재정지원 문제를 함께 거론한 점, 이 사건 토론회 이후의 다른 선거유세에서도 다소 표현의 차이는 있으나 문경시의 예산운영문제와 관련하여 업무추진비 예산과 교육재정지원비를 대비하여 발언하면서 예산의 효율적인 운영에 관한 자신의 의견을 피력하였던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 사건 토론회에서 이 사건 ‘②의 발언’을 한 의도는, 업무추진비로 사용된 예산의 규모와 교육재정지원에 사용된 예산의 규모를 서로 대비함으로써 과거 토론회에서 판공비를 쓰지 않겠다는 말까지 한 적이 있는 상대 후보 공소외 1이 시장으로 재직하면서 판공비 등과 같은 소모성 예산에 비하여 극히 미미한 금액을 교육재정에 지원하였다는 사실을 지적하면서 교육재정지원에 관한 정책 등 비효율적 예산운영을 비판하고, 나아가 업무추진비와 같은 소모성 또는 낭비성 예산을 줄여 교육재정에 지원하는 정책을 펴겠다는 자신의 의견을 제시하기 위한 것이었으나 방송토론회에서의 시간상의 제약으로 인하여 그 발언의 전체적인 의도를 제대로 전달하지 못하게 된 것으로 보일 뿐이고, 그것이 일반인의 판공비에 대한 부정적인 시각을 이용하여 공소외 1이 판공비를 쓰지 않겠다는 공약을 내세우고도 이를 어기고 시장으로서의 공소외 1 개인이 판공비를 4년간 12억 원을 직접 사용하였다거나 그러한 판공비를 부정하게 사용하였다는 것을 내세우려고 했던 것으로는 보이지 아니한다(이는 피고인과 공소외 2가 문경시 공무원인 공소외 4 등에게 업무추진비 예산의 세부적 내용이나 그 집행주체와 집행실태에 관하여 상세하게 묻지 아니하고 전체적인 예산규모만을 확인한 것에 그친 점을 보더라도, 피고인은 시장인 공소외 1이 업무추진비를 정당한 곳에 사용하였는지 여부 등 그 집행의 투명성을 문제 삼으려고 하였던 것은 아니라고 판단된다).

In full view of the Defendant’s intent to make a statement in the instant debate and the objective contents of his expression, the overall purport of Nonindicted 1’s statement that the Defendant used KRW 1.2 billion for 4 years each year, 30 million per year, emphasizing that the budget executed by Nonindicted 1’s business promotion expenses during the period during which Nonindicted 1 was in office in the market reaches KRW 1.2 billion, it should be deemed that the appropriateness of the compilation of the budget is a problem. From the standpoint of the elector, it would be possible to understand the above statement in the same context. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s above statement was publicly announced or false.

Furthermore, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant, based on inaccurate data in ascertaining the scale or execution details of business promotion expenses, based on incorrect data, calculated the aggregate of the budget for business promotion expenses, business promotion expenses for the operation of institutions, business promotion expenses for the fixed number of fixed numbers of fixed numbers of KRW 53 million (in cases of the budget of 2005, KRW 20 million for the business promotion expenses for the operation of institutions, KRW 250 million for the business promotion expenses for the policy implementation, KRW 23 million for the total of KRW 320 million for the business promotion expenses for the policy implementation, and KRW 1.2 billion for 4 years, including the institution operation, the fixed number of fixed numbers, and business promotion expenses for the policy implementation, and KRW 1.20 million for the public prosecutor's statement of Nonindicted 10 and KRW 200,000, KRW 700,000 for the market execution expenses, KRW 106,000,000 for the market execution expenses attached to Nonindicted 10.

C. Sub-decision

Thus, it cannot be concluded that there was a perception that the contents of the Defendant’s speech were false, and “B” speech cannot be readily concluded that the contents of the Defendant’s speech were false, or that the Defendant knew that it was false. On the contrary, the lower court determined that all of the Defendant’s speech in this case was false and that the Defendant was aware of false facts. In so doing, the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the Defendant’s violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts, and the violation of the Public Official Election Act by prior election under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should also be reversed.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the part of the judgment below against the defendant under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed, and the following decision is rendered again through pleading, without examining the defendant's and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing.

An election campaign may be carried out only from the day after the deadline for candidate registration to the day before the election day, and it is not possible to carry out an election campaign before the deadline;

Around 21:00 on October 21, 2005, the Defendant attended Nonindicted 11 et al., the electoral voter, at the (trade name omitted), with two-lanes of singing, and told Nonindicted 12, etc., who are the electorates, to read, “the young people are able to grow up, the young people are forced to grow up, and the young people shall be the market, and the young people shall be the market,” and provided a prior election campaign by requesting support.”

The summary of the evidence of the above crime is as shown in the summary of the evidence (each point of No. 1 and No. 2-A of the judgment of the court below) of the court below. Thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 254(3) of the Public Official Election Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

On October 21, 2005, which was far earlier than the election day, the campaign in the instant case was carried out on October 21, 2005, and the contents and degree of the offense are relatively insignificant. The Defendant is sentenced to a fine that can maintain the election by taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the motive, circumstance and result of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, degree of previous justice, etc., by taking into account the following factors: (a) in the election in the literacy market, the Defendant received 62% (26,970 votes) of the valid votes from Non-Indicted 1’s 38% (16,665 votes) more than that of Non-Indicted 1’s 38% (16,665 votes).

The summary of the facts charged concerning the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the publication of false facts among the facts charged in the instant case is as seen earlier. As seen in the determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, etc., the above facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the acquittal is rendered

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Kang-won (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)