Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Free distribution of a pledge book as a regulated donation
Supreme Court, Apr. 4, 2024, 2023Do18846 (judgment)
Case name: 공직선거법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a preliminary candidate published one pledge book under Article 60-4(1) of the Public Official Election Act and distributed it free, was that distribution itself an act of donation restricted by Article 113, or does the separate regulation of the distribution method place the pledge book outside the objects of donation?
Holding
It does not exclude it. The Supreme Court held that the Act's separate limits on how a pledge book may be distributed do not take the book out of the objects of donation regulated by Article 113. The reasons given are that Article 112(2)(i)(r) treats the provision of party promotional printed materials as an exception and thus presupposes that such materials are in principle objects of donation; that a pledge book promotes the candidate's policies and has value in helping build a support base; and that a book produced at considerable cost, if given away free, would let a candidate with greater funds run a superior campaign, so the candidate's financial strength could influence the voter's choice.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이와 같이 공직선거법에서 기부행위제한 규정과 별도로 예비후보자공약집의 배부방법 제한 규정을 두고 있다고 하여 예비후보자공약집이 공직선거법에서 규율하는 기부행위의 객체에서 제외된다고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The fact that the Public Official Election Act, separately from the provisions restricting acts of donation, has provisions restricting the methods of distributing preliminary candidates' campaign pledge booklets as such does not mean that such booklets can be regarded as excluded from the objects of an act of donation as regulated under the Public Official Election Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 원심판결의 법령의 적용 중 범죄사실에 대한 해당법조 부분의 각 ‘공직선거법 제257조 제1항 제1호, 제113조 제1항 제1호’를 각 ‘공직선거법 제257조 제1항 제1호, 제113조 제1항’으로 경정한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. In the application of laws and regulations in the judgment of the court below, each of the 'Article 257 (1) 1, Article 113 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act' in the part concerning the applicable provisions for the criminal facts is corrected to 'Article 257 (1) 1, Article 113 (1) of the Public Official Election Act', respectively.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
공직선거법에서의 기부행위는 원칙적으로 당사자 일방이 상대방에게 무상으로 금전·물품 기타 재산상 이익의 제공, 이익제공의 의사표시 또는 그 제공을 약속하는 행위를 말한다(공직선거법 제112조 제1항).
Unofficial English translation
An act of donation under the Public Official Election Act means, in principle, an act whereby one party to the transaction provides money, goods, or other pecuniary benefits to the other party free of charge, makes an expression of intent to provide such benefits, or promises to provide them (Article 112 (1) of the Public Official Election Act).
Factors
- 기부행위가 후보자의 지지기반을 조성하는 데에 기여하거나 매수행위와 결부될 가능성이 높아
- 정당의 홍보인쇄물도 원칙적으로 기부행위의 객체에 해당함을 전제로 그 예외를 규정하고 있다
- 예비후보자의 정책 등을 홍보하기 위한 것으로서 예비후보자의 지지기반을 조성하는 데에 기여하는 가치가 있는 물건이다
- 상당한 비용을 들여 도서의 형태로 발간되는 것이어서 이를 무상으로 배부하게 되면 자금력을 기반으로 상대적으로 우월한 홍보활동과 효과적인 선거운동이 가능하게 되므로
- 후보자의 자금력이 유권자의 후보자 선택에 관한 의사결정에 영향을 미칠 우려가 있다
Unofficial English translation
• an act of donation contributes to building a candidate's base of support and is highly likely to be linked to vote-buying
• it also prescribes exceptions on the premise that the promotional printed materials of a political party also fall within the objects of an act of donation in principle
• it is an article of value that is intended to promote the policies of a preliminary candidate and the like and that contributes to building the preliminary candidate's base of support
• it is published in the form of a book at considerable expense, so if it were distributed free of charge, relatively superior promotional activities and effective election campaigning would become possible on the basis of financial capacity
• there is concern that the candidate's financial capacity may affect the voters' decision-making in selecting a candidate
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 2. 21. 선고 2001도2819 전원합의체 판결(공2002상, 734)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2819 decided February 21, 2002, en banc judgment (Gong 2002 Sang, 734)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2002. 2. 21. 선고 2001도2819 전원합의체 판결(공2002상, 734), 대법원 2002. 9. 10. 선고 2002도43 판결(공2002하, 2460)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a pledge book is distributed as an electronic file rather than in the book form contemplated by Article 60-4(1), does that provision still fall within the objects of donation under Article 113?
An amendment to Article 60-4(1), Article 112 or Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act on the form in which a pledge book is published or distributed would require this entry to be read again. So would a later decision extending or limiting the Court's reasoning on pledge books produced in book form.
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 Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 14 December 2023 (2023No28), held that the defendant's free distribution of a pledge book on 24 March 2022 was an act of donation prohibited by Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act. It therefore found that, alongside the offence of violating the distribution method for the pledge book, a further offence of violating the restriction on donations was made out, and that the two stood in ideal concurrence.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the relevant law and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not breached the rules of logic and experience, gone beyond the limits of free evaluation, or misread the meaning of 'act of donation' under the Act or the rules on concurrence. It also held that the defendant's claim that the provision applied was unconstitutional had not been raised as a ground of appeal below and was not a lawful ground of appeal, and in any event that there was no error in applying the provision.
Distinguishing conditions
- A pledge book distributed by the ordinary means of sale, since Article 60-4(1) allows publication and distribution subject to limits of that kind on the method.
- The provision of teaching materials or party promotional printed materials at a specified party event at the party's expense, which Article 112(2)(i)(r) expressly does not treat as a donation.
- Handing out business cards or mailing preliminary candidate promotional materials in pre-election campaigning, which Article 59 proviso (i) and Article 60-3(1)(ii) and (iv) permit and which the Court contrasted with the pledge book.
Record verification notes
Set the distribution against Article 60-4(1) first: confirm that only one pledge book was published and which method of distribution was used, since free distribution of a book produced at considerable cost in book form is what the Court relied on. Then separate the two offences the court below treated as ideal concurrence, the breach of the distribution method and the breach of the donation restriction, and check whether the donation count was within what the defendant contested on appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
공직선거법 제113조에서 기부행위를 제한하는 취지 / 예비후보자공약집이 공직선거법에서 규율하는 기부행위의 객체에서 제외되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The purpose of restricting acts of donation under Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act / Whether a preliminary candidate's campaign pledge booklet is excluded from the objects of an act of donation as regulated under the Public Official Election Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
공직선거법에서의 기부행위는 원칙적으로 당사자 일방이 상대방에게 무상으로 금전·물품 기타 재산상 이익의 제공, 이익제공의 의사표시 또는 그 제공을 약속하는 행위를 말한다(공직선거법 제112조 제1항). 공직선거법 제113조에서 기부행위를 제한하는 취지는 기부행위가 후보자의 지지기반을 조성하는 데에 기여하거나 매수행위와 결부될 가능성이 높아 이를 허용할 경우 선거 자체가 후보자의 인물·식견 및 정책 등을 평가받는 기회가 되기보다는 후보자의 자금력을 겨루는 과정으로 타락할 위험성이 있어 이를 방지하기 위한 것이다. 공직선거법은 대통령선거 및 지방자치단체의 장선거의 예비후보자의 경우 예비후보자공약집 1종을 발간·배부할 수 있도록 하되 배부방법에 있어 통상적인 방법으로 판매하도록 하는 등의 제한을 두고 있다(제60조의4 제1항). 이와 같이 공직선거법에서 기부행위제한 규정과 별도로 예비후보자공약집의 배부방법 제한 규정을 두고 있다고 하여 예비후보자공약집이 공직선거법에서 규율하는 기부행위의 객체에서 제외된다고 볼 수는 없다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다. (가) 공직선거법 제112조 제2항은 기부행위로 보지 아니하는 행위 중 하나로 제1호 (라)목에서 일정한 정당 행사에서 참석당원 등에게 정당의 경비로 ‘교재나 그 밖에 정당의 홍보인쇄물 등을 제공하는 행위’를 들고 있어, 정당의 홍보인쇄물도 원칙적으로 기부행위의 객체에 해당함을 전제로 그 예외를 규정하고 있다. 이러한 규정에 비추어 보면, 기부행위의 객체가 되는 서적이 재산상의 가치가 있는 서적으로 한정된다거나 불특정의 사람이 일정한 대가를 지급하고 획득하려는 의지를 촉발시켜야 할 정도에 이르러야만 한다고 볼 수 없다. (나) 예비후보자공약집은 예비후보자의 정책 등을 홍보하기 위한 것으로서 예비후보자의 지지기반을 조성하는 데에 기여하는 가치가 있는 물건이다. (다) 공직선거법 제59조 단서 제1호 및 제60조의3 제1항 제2호, 제4호는 등록한 예비후보자에게 사전선거운동으로 명함을 교부하거나 예비후보자홍보물을 우편발송하는 행위 등을 허용하는데, 공직선거법 제60조의4 제1항에서 규율하는 예비후보자공약집은 명함이나 예비후보자홍보물과는 달리 상당한 비용을 들여 도서의 형태로 발간되는 것이어서 이를 무상으로 배부하게 되면 자금력을 기반으로 상대적으로 우월한 홍보활동과 효과적인 선거운동이 가능하게 되므로, 결국 후보자의 자금력이 유권자의 후보자 선택에 관한 의사결정에 영향을 미칠 우려가 있다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 원심판결의 법령의 적용 중 범죄사실에 대한 해당법조 부분의 각 ‘공직선거법 제257조 제1항 제1호, 제113조 제1항 제1호’를 각 ‘공직선거법 제257조 제1항 제1호, 제113조 제1항’으로 경정한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. In the application of laws and regulations in the judgment of the court below, each of the 'Article 257 (1) 1, Article 113 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act' in the part concerning the applicable provisions for the criminal facts is corrected to 'Article 257 (1) 1, Article 113 (1) of the Public Official Election Act', respectively.
Provisions referred to
공직선거법 제59조 제1호, 제60조의3, 제60조의4, 제112조, 제113조, 제255조 제2항, 제257조 제1항
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