The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 57-3 (1) of the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") limits the method of competition campaign on the grounds that it is impossible to conduct an internal competition campaign by any means other than those falling under any of the subparagraphs.

The purpose of this is to promote an orderly competition campaign to prevent the excessive competition campaign in the party competition campaign and to prevent abuse of it as a legal means to avoid the provision of prohibition of advance election campaign (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8869, Mar. 15, 2007). In light of such legislative intent, etc., the grounds of appeal that Article 57-3(1) of the Act is unconstitutional by excessively restricting the competition campaign method, thereby contravening the principle of excessive prohibition cannot be accepted.

In addition, in light of the language and text of the above provision, the method of the competition campaign as determined by the above cannot be said to be contrary to the principle of clarity.

Article 57-3 (1) 1 of the Act permits the method provided for in Article 60-3 (1) 1 and 2 of the Act by means of the intra-party competition campaign method. Article 60-3 (1) 2 of the Act provides that "An appeal for support" is one of the election campaign methods for which a preliminary candidate is eligible.

Therefore, it is not allowed to use the positive device even in the case of “an act of appeal for support” as the method of an internal competition campaign, since it is listed in Article 60-3 of the Act as limited to the method of election campaign for the candidate, and there is no use of the positive device.

It should be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1244, Apr. 28, 2011). The grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) the competition campaign is not an election campaign provided by Article 91(1) of the Act; and (b) the use of the confirmation device is not restricted or acceptable.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of an internal competition campaign.

The other ground of appeal is with merit.