Case on Election Campaign by Teacher via Social Networking Service
[2016Hun-Ma1071, February 27, 2020] * First Draft
In this case, the Court ruled that a mere act of simply sharing other’s posting on ‘Facebook’
account cannot be regarded as an ‘election campaign’ under the Public Official Election Act.
The Court also found that whether the act of posting is to be concluded as an ‘election
campaign’ should be determined by not only considering the contents of the posting but
comprehensively examining the circumstances insinuating that it displays explicit intention of
helping a specific candidate win or lose the election.
Background of the Case
The Public Official Election Act bans public officials from engaging in any ‘election
campaign’, and those violating it are subject to criminal punishment. The Complainant is a
public official serving as a public school teacher, who shared an online post (news and video)
th
on a personal Facebook account telling that a specific candidate was lying, before the 20
General Election.
The Complainant was charged for unlawfully engaging in an election campaign by sharing
such post. However, the respondent, who is also a prosecutor suspended the prosecution
against the Complainant on September 13, 2016, explaining that the act of posting is
considered as the election campaign that is banned for public officials to be engaged in
pursuant to the Public Official Election Act but the criminality is minor. The Complainant
filed this complaint to seek invalidation of the suspension of prosecution, arguing that this
measure given by the prosecutor is unfair and infringes upon the Complainant’s right to
equality and right to pursue happiness.
Legal Ground of Suspension of Prosecution
Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 9974, January 25, 2010)
Article 255 Section 1 Item 2; and, Article 60, Section 1 Item 4
Summary of the Decision