It does not fall under "an act of distributing newspapers carrying articles on election by any means other than ordinary methods" prohibited by Article 95 (1) of the Public Official Election Act.

Articles 95 and 252(1) of the Public Official Election Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do39 Decided March 25, 2005 Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14940 Decided January 27, 2011

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 2015No987 decided July 10, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 95(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides, “No person shall distribute, distribute, post, or post any newspaper, communication, magazine, organ of an institution, organization, facility, or other publication that carries an article related to an election, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, or distribute, distribute, post, or post such article by reproducing it in a way other than ordinary ways.” Article 95(2) of the same Act provides, “Distribution in a normal way” refers to a “distribution in a normal way and scope.” Therefore, in light of the content of the article published in the newspaper in question, the number and frequency of the articles published in question, the distribution place, and all other circumstances, if it can be deemed that such act was published and distributed in a way other than ordinary methods and scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 205Do39, Mar. 25, 2005).

The lower court determined that: (a) the ○○○ regional newspaper issued by the Defendant was a regional newspaper that was an unclaimed place, and the number of publications or accompanying numbers could not be maintained in a certain manner due to the difficulties in normal management; (b) there were regional pending issues, such as election of National Assembly members and local elections, or redevelopment, reconstruction, etc. in which local residents interest was concentrated; and (c) when an advertiser’s special request is made, the number of publications was increased to 15,00 to 20,000, and 30,000 were issued. As such, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s distribution of Nonindicted Party 1’s annual newspaper to 20,000 on March 20, 2014; and (d) it appears that it was difficult to view that Nonindicted Party 3’s previous publication and distribution of the news report to be a relatively more objective method than that of Nonindicted Party 1’s daily publication and that it was difficult for the Defendant to view that each of the previous news report was distributed to Nonindicted Party 3’s.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by violating the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on “other methods than ordinary methods” under Article 95(

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

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)