Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
A benefit for a future candidate before that candidate is designated
Supreme Court, July 21, 2021, 2020Do16062 (judgment)
Case name: 컴퓨터등장애업무방해·공직선거법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
For the offences under Article 230(1)(iv) and Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, must a specific candidate who is the object of the campaigning exist at the time a benefit, an expression of intention to give it or a promise of it is made in connection with campaigning in a future election?
Holding
It need not. Under Article 135(3), 'related to election campaigning' carries the meaning of being close in time to campaigning or being motivated by a matter of campaigning, which is wider than 'for the purpose of election campaigning', and the offence covers the provision of a benefit, its expression of intention and a promise of it, not only during the campaign period the Act provides. Where such an act is related to campaigning in a specific election for a candidate who would later be designated, the crime is established, and the prohibition binds 'anyone', not only candidates, would-be candidates or those campaigning for them.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
공직선거법 제230조 제1항 제4호, 제135조 제3항 위반죄는 금품 기타 이익의 제공, 그 제공의 의사표시 및 약속(이하 ‘이익의 제공 등’이라고 한다)이 특정 선거에서의 선거운동과 관련되어 있음이 인정되면 충분하다고 할 것이므로,
Unofficial English translation
As for the offense of violation of Article 230, paragraph (1), subparagraph 4 and Article 135, paragraph (3) of the Public Official Election Act, it is sufficient if it is recognized that the provision of money or other benefits, an expression of intention to provide the same, and a promise to provide the same (hereinafter 'provision of benefits, etc.') is connected with an election campaign in a specific election, and thus,
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
공직선거법 제135조 제3항에서 정한 ‘선거운동과 관련하여’는 ‘선거운동에 즈음하여, 선거운동에 관한 사항을 동기로 하여’라는 의미로서 ‘선거운동을 위하여’보다 광범위하며
Unofficial English translation
'In connection with an election campaign' as provided in Article 135, paragraph (3) of the Public Official Election Act means 'upon the occasion of an election campaign, with matters relating to an election campaign as the motive,' and is broader in scope than 'for an election campaign,' and
Factors
- ‘선거운동에 즈음하여, 선거운동에 관한 사항을 동기로 하여’라는 의미로서 ‘선거운동을 위하여’보다 광범위하며
- 그 처벌대상은 위 법이 정한 선거운동기간 중의 금품제공 등에 한정되지 않는다
- ‘누구든지’ 선거운동과 관련하여 금품 기타 이익의 제공 또는 그 제공의 의사를 표시하거나 그 제공을 약속하는 것을 금지하고 있을 뿐, 그 주체를 후보자, 후보자가 되고자 하는 자, 후보자를 위하여 선거운동을 하는 자 등으로 제한하고 있지 않다
- 장차 특정될 후보자를 위한 선거운동과 관련하여 이익의 제공 등을 한 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
• it means 'upon the occasion of an election campaign, with matters relating to an election campaign as the motive,' and is broader in scope than 'for an election campaign,' and
• the conduct subject to such punishment is not limited to the provision of money, etc. during the election campaign period prescribed by the said Act
• it merely prohibits 'any person' from providing money or other benefits in connection with an election campaign, or expressing an intention to provide the same, or promising to provide the same, and does not restrict the subject thereof to a candidate, a person who seeks to become a candidate, a person who conducts an election campaign for a candidate, etc.
• where a person has provided benefits, etc. in connection with an election campaign for a candidate to be identified in the future,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 2. 18. 선고 2004도6795 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6795 decided February 18, 2005
Decisions referred to
대법원 2005. 2. 18. 선고 2004도6795 판결, 대법원 2010. 12. 23. 선고 2010도9110 판결(공2011상, 275), 대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017도13458 판결(공2018상, 141)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the benefit is offered before any candidacy exists, what evidence shows that it was related to campaigning in that specific election rather than to politics in general?
A later Supreme Court decision on how the connection to a specific election is established would affect the second, evidentiary limb of this reading. Any amendment to Article 135(3) or Article 230(1)(iv) of the Public Official Election Act would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 6 November 2020 (2019No461), held that the condition 'related to election campaigning' requires both a specific election and a specific candidate, and their connection with the act. It found no evidence that, when the defendant expressed the intention to confer the benefit (through Non-party 2 and then directly to Non-party 1), any specific candidate had declared a run for that local election or could objectively be shown to intend to stand, and no evidence that the expression was related to that local election, so it acquitted on the election law count.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the meaning of 'related to election campaigning' by requiring a designated candidate to exist at the time of the act. It upheld, however, the court below's separate ground that the record contained no evidence linking the expression of intention to the local election, finding no error in that evidentiary assessment. Because the acquittal had to stand on that ground regardless, the legal error had no effect on the outcome and all appeals, those of the defendant and of the special prosecutor, were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the record carries no evidence that the provision of a benefit, its expression of intention or a promise of it was related to campaigning in that specific election, since the Court left the acquittal standing on that ground.
- Acts that only advertise or support a party in the abstract, without relation to campaigning in a specific election, since the offence requires that connection to be established.
- The provision of an allowance, expenses or a similar benefit the Act itself provides for, since Article 135(3) prohibits such provision save for those cases.
Record verification notes
Set the file against two separate questions: whether the act can be tied to one identified election, and whether it was related to campaigning in it, since the Court treated the evidentiary link as an independent ground. Gather what shows the benefit was aimed at a particular election, including any candidacy declared or intended later, and check whether the actor falls within the wide subject of 'anyone' under Article 135(3).
From the official text
Points at issue
장래에 있을 선거에서의 선거운동과 관련하여 금품 기타 이익의 제공, 그 제공의 의사표시 및 약속을 한 경우, 공직선거법 제230조 제1항 제4호, 제135조 제3항 위반죄가 성립하기 위하여 그 당시 반드시 선거운동의 대상인 특정 후보자가 존재하고 있어야 하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a person has provided money or other benefits, has expressed an intention to provide the same, or has promised to provide the same in connection with an election campaign in a future election, a specific candidate who is the object of the election campaign must necessarily exist at that time for the offense of violation of Article 230, paragraph (1), subparagraph 4 and Article 135, paragraph (3) of the Public Official Election Act to be established (negative)
Summary of the holding
공직선거법 제135조 제3항에서 정한 ‘선거운동과 관련하여’는 ‘선거운동에 즈음하여, 선거운동에 관한 사항을 동기로 하여’라는 의미로서 ‘선거운동을 위하여’보다 광범위하며, 선거운동의 목적 또는 선거에 영향을 미치게 할 목적이 없었다 하더라도 그 행위 자체가 선거의 자유·공정을 침해할 우려가 높은 행위를 규제할 필요성에서 설정된 것이고, 공직선거법 제230조 제1항 제4호, 제135조 제3항 위반죄는 선거운동과 관련하여 금품 기타 이익의 제공 또는 그 제공의 의사를 표시하거나 그 제공을 약속하는 행위를 처벌대상으로 하는 것으로서, 그 처벌대상은 위 법이 정한 선거운동기간 중의 금품제공 등에 한정되지 않는다. 한편 공직선거법 제135조 제3항은 ‘누구든지’ 선거운동과 관련하여 금품 기타 이익의 제공 또는 그 제공의 의사를 표시하거나 그 제공을 약속하는 것을 금지하고 있을 뿐, 그 주체를 후보자, 후보자가 되고자 하는 자, 후보자를 위하여 선거운동을 하는 자 등으로 제한하고 있지 않다. 위와 같은 공직선거법 관련 법리 및 규정에 비추어 보면, 공직선거법 제230조 제1항 제4호, 제135조 제3항 위반죄는 금품 기타 이익의 제공, 그 제공의 의사표시 및 약속(이하 ‘이익의 제공 등’이라고 한다)이 특정 선거에서의 선거운동과 관련되어 있음이 인정되면 충분하다고 할 것이므로, 장래에 있을 선거에서의 선거운동과 관련하여 이익의 제공 등을 할 당시 선거운동의 대상인 후보자가 특정되어 있지 않더라도 장차 특정될 후보자를 위한 선거운동과 관련하여 이익의 제공 등을 한 경우에는 위 공직선거법 제230조 제1항 제4호, 제135조 제3항 위반죄가 성립한다고 보아야 하고, 이익의 제공 등을 할 당시 반드시 특정 후보자가 존재하고 있어야 한다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Provisions referred to
공직선거법 제135조 제3항, 제230조 제1항 제4호
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