Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Whether an unaccompanied Facebook share constitutes election campaign
Supreme Court, Nov. 29, 2018, 2017Do2972 (judgment)
Case name: 공직선거법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a private school teacher who may not campaign under Article 60(1) of the Public Official Election Act commit election campaign under Article 58(1) merely by showing political views or beliefs on a social network service whose content has some connection with an election, and does sharing a media internet article once on another person's Facebook post with nothing written alongside it amount to election campaign?
Holding
No, not on that ground alone. Election campaign means an active and planned act from which an intention to secure the election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election can be objectively recognised, judged not from the actor's state of mind but from the act as displayed outwardly, and any such intention must rest on objective circumstances a voter could clearly recognise, observed together with the time, place and manner of the act. Sharing a media internet article once with nothing written alongside it is, in the ordinary case, an act from which such an intention is not clearly evident, and the same applies to a private school teacher barred from campaigning by Article 60(1).
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 내용이 선거와 관련성이 인정된다고 하더라도, 그 이유만으로 섣불리 선거운동에 해당한다고 속단해서는 아니 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if the content is found to be related to an election, one must not rashly conclude that it constitutes an election campaign merely for that reason.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
공직선거법 제58조 제1항에 정한 ‘선거운동’은 특정 선거에서 특정 후보자의 당선 또는 낙선을 도모한다는 목적의사가 객관적으로 인정될 수 있는 능동적이고 계획적인 행위를 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
The 'election campaign' as prescribed in Article 58 paragraph (1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to an active and planned act for which the intent to aim for the election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election can be objectively recognized.
Factors
- 행위를 하는 주체의 의사가 아니라 외부에 표시된 행위를 대상으로 객관적으로 판단하여야 한다
- 선거인이 명백히 인식할 만한 객관적인 사정에 근거하여야 하고
- 단순히 행위의 명목뿐만 아니라 행위를 한 시기·장소·방법 등을 종합적으로 관찰하여 판단하여야 한다
- ‘공유하기’ 기능에는 정보확산의 측면과 단순 정보저장의 측면이 동시에 존재한다
Unofficial English translation
• The determination must be made objectively, targeting the act as externally manifested rather than the intent of the actor
• It must be based on objective circumstances from which a voter may clearly perceive it
• The determination must be made by comprehensively observing not merely the nominal designation of the act but also the time, place, and method of the act
• The 'Share' function contains at once an aspect of information dissemination and an aspect of simple information storage
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 12. 23. 선고 2013도15113 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Do15113 decided December 23, 2015
Decisions referred to
대법원 2015. 12. 23. 선고 2013도15113 판결, 대법원 2016. 8. 26. 선고 2015도11812 전원합의체 판결(공2016하, 1457)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How many shares, over what period and in what pattern, would show the active and planned conduct from which the purpose to secure a candidate's election or defeat is objectively recognised?
The remanded judgment of the Seoul High Court on the count of 13 April 2016 will show how the objective test is applied to a bare share. Any amendment to Article 58(1) or Article 60(1) of the Public Official Election Act, or a later decision on sharing on a social network service, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
The primary records the standard as setting out requirements, while the independent reading records it as comprehensive consideration. The holding does set out requirements but also directs examination of all circumstances, so both labels partly fit.
단순히 행위의 명목뿐만 아니라 행위를 한 시기·장소·방법 등을 종합적으로 관찰하여 판단하여야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 9 February 2017 (2016No3915), convicted the defendant of a breach of the Public Official Election Act for the count of 13 April 2016, on the footing that a private school teacher may not campaign yet the defendant shared on the defendant's Facebook account a post linking an article headed 'The Minjoo Party's economic pledges in one place; unnamed figure: 'the Saenuri Party's policy ideas run dry'' in order to prevent Saenuri Party candidates from being elected in the 20th National Assembly election held that day.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the shared post only introduced an interview article on economic pledges and policies and did not objectively show an intention to defeat a specific candidate, that a mere share is far less active than writing, commenting or pressing 'like', and that the recipient must actively select the item in the news feed. Since the other convictions were in concurrence under Article 37 first sentence of the Criminal Act with one sentence imposed, it reversed the whole of the convicted part for misapprehending the law on election campaign and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the person appended one's own words to the shared post, wrote a comment or pressed 'like', so that the act is more active than a bare share.
- A case showing special circumstances such as creating a Facebook account in a short period, adding an excessive number of friends and posting similar items in an exceptional run of consecutive shares.
- A case in which the shared content itself supports or opposes a specific party or candidate, rather than being no more than a media interview article.
Record verification notes
Set the file against each element the Court named: whether anything was written alongside the share, the time and place of the act, whether several items were shared in succession, and whether the account and friends list were built up for that purpose. Check the content of the linked article itself, since the Court relied on its being an interview in which an unnamed person's own claims were plainly shown. Note also that the Election Commission appears to have dealt with the reported conduct by warning or closure without referring it to the prosecution.
From the official text
Points at issue
공직선거법상 ‘선거운동’의 의미와 판단 기준 / 공직선거법상 선거운동을 할 수 없는 사립학교 교원이 ‘페이스북’과 같은 누리소통망을 통해 자신의 정치적인 견해나 신념을 외부에 표출한 경우, 그 내용이 선거와 관련성이 인정된다는 이유만으로 선거운동에 해당하는지 여부(소극) / 타인의 페이스북 게시물에 대하여 아무런 글을 부기하지 않고 언론의 인터넷 기사를 단순히 1회 ‘공유하기’ 한 행위만으로 공직선거법상 선거운동에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Meaning and criteria for determining an 'election campaign' under the Public Official Election Act / Where a private school teacher, who may not engage in an election campaign under the Public Official Election Act, externally expressed his or her political views or convictions through a social network service such as 'Facebook,' whether the act constitutes an election campaign merely on the ground that its content is found to be related to an election (negative) / Whether merely 'sharing,' once, an internet news article of a press organization, without appending any comment of one's own to another person's Facebook post, constitutes an election campaign under the Public Official Election Act (negative in principle)
Summary of the holding
공직선거법 제58조 제1항에 정한 ‘선거운동’은 특정 선거에서 특정 후보자의 당선 또는 낙선을 도모한다는 목적의사가 객관적으로 인정될 수 있는 능동적이고 계획적인 행위를 말한다. 이에 해당하는지는 행위를 하는 주체의 의사가 아니라 외부에 표시된 행위를 대상으로 객관적으로 판단하여야 한다. 또한 위와 같은 목적의사가 있었다고 추단하려면, 단순히 선거와의 관련성을 추측할 수 있다거나 선거에 관한 사항을 동기로 하였다는 사정만으로는 부족하고 특정 선거에서의 특정 후보자의 당락을 도모하는 행위임을 선거인이 명백히 인식할 만한 객관적인 사정에 근거하여야 하고, 단순히 행위의 명목뿐만 아니라 행위를 한 시기·장소·방법 등을 종합적으로 관찰하여 판단하여야 한다. 이는 공직선거법 제60조 제1항에 따라 선거운동을 할 수 없는 사립학교 교원의 경우에도 마찬가지이다. 따라서 공직선거법상 선거운동을 할 수 없는 사립학교 교원이 ‘페이스북’과 같은 누리소통망(이른바 ‘소셜 네트워크 서비스’)을 통해 자신의 정치적인 견해나 신념을 외부에 표출하였고, 그 내용이 선거와 관련성이 인정된다고 하더라도, 그 이유만으로 섣불리 선거운동에 해당한다고 속단해서는 아니 된다. 한편 타인의 페이스북 게시물에 대하여 자신의 의견을 표현하는 수단으로는 ① ‘좋아요’ 버튼 누르기, ② 댓글 달기, ③ 공유하기의 세 가지가 있는데, 이용자가 다른 이용자의 페이스북 게시물을 보다가 자신의 감정을 표현하고 싶을 때는 ‘좋아요’ 버튼을 누르고, 의견을 제시하고 싶을 때는 ‘댓글 달기’ 기능을 이용하며, 게시물을 저장하고 싶을 때는 ‘공유하기’ 기능을 이용하는 경향성을 갖게 된다. 그런데 타인의 게시물을 공유하는 목적은 게시물에 나타난 의견에 찬성하기 때문일 수도 있지만 반대하기 때문일 수도 있고, 내용이 재미있거나 흥미롭기 때문일 수도 있으며, 자료수집이 필요하기 때문일 수도 있고, 내용을 당장 읽지 않고 나중에 읽어 볼 목적으로 일단 저장해두기 위한 것일 수도 있는 등 상당히 다양하고, ‘공유하기’ 기능에는 정보확산의 측면과 단순 정보저장의 측면이 동시에 존재한다. 따라서 아무런 글을 부기하지 않고 언론의 인터넷 기사를 단순히 1회 ‘공유하기’ 한 행위만으로는 특정 선거에서 특정 후보자의 당선 또는 낙선을 도모하려는 목적의사가 명백히 드러났다고 보기 어려운 경우가 일반적일 것이다.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
공직선거법 제58조 제1항, 제60조 제1항, 제255조 제1항 제2호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger