1. Case summary① Who did Barun Law (attorneys Kang Joo-heon, Park Sung-ho, Kim Jeong-jun, and Jeong Chan-ho) represent? We represented a mayor of a city.
② Case background
“A” is a person who ran for mayor of a city as a member of a political party in the mayor re-election held on April 15, 2020. “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, “I”, “J”, “K”, and “L” were residents 무료바카라 city and supporters of A. When it was confirmed that the mayor re-election was to be held, B opened a Naver cafe with only those who supported A in October 2019 and invited C and the others as cafe members. Afterwards, B and the others conducted activities of pressing “Like” and posting “comments” on posts and card news posted on A's Facebook account, etc. and sharing the posts with their acquaintances. In addition, they held an event of launching the Naver café. As some members of a provincial council 무료바카라 city announced that they supported “Z” who was competing with A in the political party, B intended to hold an event of declaring support for A by receiving signatures of support from more than 2,020 residents. B prepared an endorsement form and delivered it to his acquaintances, including C and the others. C and the others received signatures of support from constituencies from mid-January 2020 to January 30, 2020. B collected the signed endorsement forms and delivered them to K, who was volunteering at A’s election camp at the time, and asked to hold an endorsement event. The event was held at A’s election office on January 31, 2020.
Meanwhile, A and I visited offices 무료바카라 City Facility Management Corporation on March 30, 2020, April 3, 2020, and April 10, 2020.
Prosecutors indicted A for violating the Public Official Election Act which was caused by violation of restrictions on the intra-party primary campaign method, violation 무료바카라 ban on receipt of signatures and stamps as endorsement for a certain candidate from voters, and pre-election campaign on the ground that A used the endorsement campaign conducted by B and the others for his primary election campaign and his election campaign, given that A was aware, in conspiration with B and the others, that supporters expressed their intentions to support him by posting comments on the post on which B uploaded the endorsement form in the Naver band that he ran, that A condoned to keep endorsement forms at the entrance of A's election office, and that A participated in an event held on January 31, 2020 where supports submitted the signed endorsement forms at A’s election office. Meanwhile, prosecutors charged B and the others for violating the Public Official Election Act due to the establishment of a private organization, and A and I for violating the Public Official Election Act by violating restriction on door-to-door election campaign.
③ Litigation and our role
Representing A, we aggressively argued that the collection of endorsement signatures was led by B, and A was not aware that B was receiving endorsement signatures from constituencies to hold a support declaration event, and therefore, it could not be viewed that A was colluded with B and the others or A’s functional behavioral domination of B’s acts through an essential contribution thereto existed, that since endorsement signatures received by B and the others were for A to be elected in the intra-party primary election, it could not be viewed that the act constituted an act of receiving signatures or stamps from constituencies for an election campaign or a pre-election campaign which were prohibited by the Public Official Election Act, and that the endorsement signatures collected by B and the others were a “simple expression of support for the party's nomination of a candidate” permitted by Article 58 (1) proviso 3 무료바카라 Public Official Election Act, and were one 무료바카라 “methods to declare support for” A or an act incidental to the declaration of support and therefore, A could not be conclusively alleged that he violated restrictions on the intra-party primary campaign method under Article 57-3 무료바카라 Public Official Election Act. We also emphasized that even if the court had a different opinion and determined that A was guilty 무료바카라 charges, the sentencing 무료바카라 election crime was very important, because depending on the results 무료바카라 election trial, A would be imposed irreparable material restrictions on the electoral rights, the right to be elected, and the right to hold public office taking office and there could be a huge riffle effect such as invalidation 무료바카라 election result. We argued that A would be given the maximum leniency allowed by the law so that A could continue to devote himself to the citizens and the city by taking into account the various normal and favorable sentencing reasons that exist for A. We dealt with one trial preparation session and a total of 15 trials from around October, 2020, when the prosecution against A was filed, to around July, 2021 when the district court delivered a sentence. We submitted the lawyer's opinions more than nine times, including the statement of final argument. We faithfully carried out all the procedures for interrogation of more than 20 witnesses and defendants.
2. Decision (Suwon District Court Pyeongtaek Branch Court Decision 2020Gohap164 dated July 21, 2021)
The district court accepted most 무료바카라 above arguments made by us, and found that A was innocent 무료바카라 allegations of violation 무료바카라 ban on the receipt of signatures/seals as endorsement for a certain candidate, violation 무료바카라 Public Official Election Act caused by the pre-election campaign, and violation 무료바카라 Public Official Election Act caused by the violation 무료바카라 primary election campaign methods. In addition, B and others were found innocent 무료바카라 allegation of violation 무료바카라 Public Official Election Act caused by the establishment of a private organization. A was convicted only of violation 무료바카라 Public Official Election Act caused by violation of restriction on the door-to-door election campaign. The court finally sentenced that A pay a fine of 800,000 won, and A could maintain his mayor position.
3. ImplicationsThe decision has implications in that it reaffirms the existing theory that activities conducted for the election or failure of a candidate who runs for a public office in a primary election of a political party do not constitute election campaign under the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court of Korea’s Decision 2012Do12172 dated May 9, 2013), and that it clarifies the legal theory that in the case of opening an internet cafe, etc. for the purpose of election activities in the cyber space, recruiting online members, etc., such online activities should be permitted as one type of election campaign conducted through ICT network and such organizations cannot be regarded as a private organization under the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court of Korea’s Decision 2013Do2190 dated November 14, 2013). In addition, the court did not consider solely on the basis 무료바카라 documentary evidence submitted by prosecutors and the statements made by the co-defendants or the witnesses at the investigative agency. The court heard and judged the case at trial, focusing on evidential documents submitted by prosecutors and lawyers 무료바카라 defendant, statements made by the co-defendants and testimonies of witnesses. As such, the decision is meaningful in that it faithfully embodies the basic principle of trial-based judgement through direct hearing 무료바카라 case.
