All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2025Do4697 Decided May 1, 2025 【Violation of the Public Official Election Act】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Standard for determining whether a certain statement constitutes the publication of false facts Whether the level of protection for political expression varies depending on the subject and object of the expression (affirmative) Matters to be considered in determining whether any particular expression made by a candidate for public office constitutes the publication of false facts under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act [2] Meaning of “acts” of a candidate subject to the publication of false facts enumerated in Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act [3] Method of determining the meaning of statements to clarify whether the statements constitute the publication of false facts and, particularly, method of interpreting the meaning of such statements where a series of statements made in response to a question on a specific topic are naturally connected with one another [4] Degree of specificity required for a “fact” as referred to in the publication of false facts under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act and the meaning of the publication of a “fact” Method of determining whether any statement corresponds to the public announcements of facts or the expression of opinions or abstract judgments [5] Meaning of “false fact” and degree of specificity required therefor as referred to in Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act Where a publicly announced statement contains slight inaccuracies or exaggerated expressions in its details, but the essential part of the statement aligns with objective facts in light of the overall intent of the details, whether it can be deemed a false fact (negative) In such a case, the method of determining whether any particular fact contains slight inaccuracies or exaggerated expressions in its details [6] In a case where the criminal defendant, a candidate from Political Party A in the 20th presidential election, was indicted on the charge of publishing false facts about his or her acts in a way favorable to him or her by lying with the intention of being elected president by making statements regarding Party B on a broadcast program to explain the relationship with Party B, who was in charge of the Daejang-dong urban development project, which was at the center of preferential treatment allegations, and making statements regarding the Baekhyeon-dong land development project at a National Assembly audit to address allegations of preferential treatment to private developers, the case holding that even though the statements about golfing with Party B, among the statements related to Party B, and the statements related to the Baekhyeon-dong, which were made by the criminal defendant, constitute the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the lower court found the facts charged in the above parts against the criminal defendant not guilty and, in so determining, erred and adversely affected the conclusion of judgment by misunderstanding the legal doctrine | |
