사전선거운동금지조항의 위헌성 -실제 사례를 중심으로-

김래영 ( Rae Young Kim ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논총 Vol.37 No.2

Public Election Campaign Act Article 58(1) provides that “election campaign” means an act for winning an election, or for making another person be or not be elected. But Article 58(2) provides the exceptions; i.e. “a simple statement of opinion or manifestation of an intention on the election” and “ordinary political party activities”. And the Act 59 provides under the title 【Period for Election Campaign】“An election campaign may be allowed during the period from the commencing date of election period to the day before the election day: 3. Where a person works on an election campaign by posting a writing or video clip on an internet web-site or its bulletin board or chatting room or sending an e-mail(referring to a communication system with which computer users exchange information in the form of text, voice, images, or video clips through a network; the same shall apply hereinafter). In such cases, persons who are permitted to send e-mails by entrusting the dispatch of e-mails to an agency shall be limited to candidates and preliminary candidates.” But the definition clause of election campaign is not clear so that not only candidates but also electors can`t estimate what is permitted as election campaign. It is the same concerning election campaign using internet. As a result, no one foresees what is prohibited as election campaign in the pre-period for election campaign. This results in the arbitrary execution of the authorities inevitably. We can see a lot of arbitrary-execution cases in the election cases. Most of all, limit on the period of election campaign is not concerned with the integrity of election, but merely restricts the freedom of election campaign of electors and candidates. Whereas liberalization of election campaign period serves participation of the electors to the politics, thus it contributes to improvement of democracy.

인터넷 선거운동의 문제점 및 부정방지제도의 법제정비방안

김민호(Minho, Kim),최종선(Jongsun, Choi) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.1

Elections under the political conditions of the modem age is an important institution that is accepted as inevitable reality cornerstone of representative democracy, it is a political process. The public offices election act was legislated in 1994 for fair management of election and for protection of illegal electioneering. As the development of the Internet, there were many changes in the electoral environment. The public offices election act had significant impact in both type of election campaign and government controls. In particular, the using social networking services, such as facebook, twitter, kakaotalk etc in internet electioneering brought about amendment the public offices election act. And congress has agreed to revise an the public offices election act so that most voters can be use internet for electioneering. This legislation reflects the changed circumstances of information and telecommunication In the electoral system. In this article, I'll be examine the problem of internet electioneering and proposed legislation on system of protection to illegal election as follows ; The public offices Election Law, internet election coverage deliberation system, some limitations to the fairness of the electoral system and the election, and to prevent the associated negative campaigning using the internet and internet campaign to prevent injustice, cyber election fraud monitoring system, the election broadcast deliberation system, election articles deliberation system, the operating system and anti-election fraud. In brief, this article consists of five chapters. Firstly it look over 'introduction' in the first chapter. Secondly it deals with 'electioneering using the internet' in the second chapter. Thirdly it deals with 'internet campaigning fraud prevention status' in the third chapter. Fourthly I'd like to suggest an alternative about 'internet election issues of regulatory and legal maintenance plan' in the fourth chapter. And lastly it deals with 'conclusion' in the fifth chapter.

헌법재판으로서 선거소송

허완중 한국공법학회 2016 공법연구 Vol.45 No.1

Election is to elect the representatives who shall exercise state power. Election can be understood as the people’s direct exercise of state power in that they elect the representatives directly. However, it is also related with indirect exercise of state power in that the action of the representatives who have been invested with the democratic legitimacy through the election is regarded as the action of the people. But, if emphasizing the fact that the people exert sovereignty through election, it seems reasonable to understand the election through the overall process in exercising their right of suffrage to realize popular sovereignty, in which the people participate in the state affairs directly, not to understand the election by focusing only on the function of the representative system which elects the representatives. The judicial proceedings arguing the legality and effectiveness of such elections are election lawsuits. Therefore, the election lawsuit is the judicial proceeding to confirm whether the exertion of sovereignty of the people is appropriate, as well as whether the people vested legitimacy in the national institution. The election lawsuit is a judicial proceeding which argues the effectiveness of election, and divided into the lawsuit for annulment of election and the lawsuit for annulment of being elected. According to law, the election lawsuit is classified as the public litigation, one of the administrative litigation. However, the election lawsuit is different from the administrative litigation in many ways. The election lawsuit is an ultimate determination of the constitutional dispute over the election by an independent institution through the judicial proceedings or any other quasi-judicial proceedings based on the Constitution and the law, which is difficult for a general judicial institution to judge, and also important in a constitutional structure. Therefore, the election lawsuit meets all the conceptual elements of the constitutional adjudication. In this respect, the election lawsuit corresponds to the constitutional trial in theory. From this viewpoint, on the situation that the Constitutional Court which is professionally in charge of the constitutional trial was established, it is desirable that the election lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Even though the Clause 1 of Article 101 of the Constitution provides that judicial power shall be vested in courts composed of judges, the judicial power here means the traditional judicial power, and does not embrace the constitutional jurisdiction. In addition, the clause 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution does not restrict the authority of the Constitutional Court. In this respect, there is no constitutional problem in granting jurisdiction over election cases to the Constitutional Court through the law. 선거는 국가권력을 행사할 대표자를 뽑는 것이다. 선거는 대표자를 직접 선출한다는 점에서는 국민이 국가권력을 직접 행사하는 것이다. 하지만 선거를 통해서 (인적) 민주적 정당성을 부여받은 대표자의 행위를 국민의 행위로 간주한다는 점에서는 국가권력을 간접적으로 행사하는 것과 관련이 있다. 그러나 선거를 통해서 국민이 국가권력을 행사한다는 점을 강조한다면, 대표 선출이라는 대의제적 기능에만 초점을 맞추어 선거를 이해할 것이 아니라 국정운영에 국민이 직접 참여한다는, 국민주권 실현을 위한 국민의 참정권 행사 전체 과정에서 선거를 바라보아야 한다. 이러한 선거의 적법성과 효력을 다투는 사법절차가 선거소송이다. 따라서 선거소송은 국가기관에 대한 국민의 정당성 부여 여부뿐 아니라 국민의 국가권력 행사가 적정한 것인지를 확정하는 사법절차이다. 선거소송은 선거나 당선의 효력을 다투는 재판절차로서 선거무효소송과 당선무효소송으로 나뉜다. 법률상 선거소송은 행정소송의 하나인 민중소송으로 분류된다. 그러나 선거소송은 여러 가지 측면에서 행정소송과 다르다. 대통령선거와 국회의원선거에 관한 소송은 독립한 기관이 헌법과 실질적 헌법인 법률을 기준으로 사법절차나 그에 버금가는 절차를 통해서 일반사법기관이 판단하기 어렵고 헌법구조상 중요한 헌법분쟁인 선거에 관한 분쟁을 종국적으로 결정하는 것이다. 따라서 대통령선거와 국회의원선거에 관한 소송은 헌법재판의 모든 개념요소를 충족한다. 이러한 점에서 대통령선거와 국회의원선거에 관한 소송은 이론상 헌법재판에 해당한다. 따라서 헌법재판을 전문적으로 담당하는 헌법재판소가 설립된 이상 대통령선거와 국회의원선거에 관한 소송도 헌법재판소가 관할하는 것이 바람직하다. 헌법 제101조 제1항이 사법권을 법관으로 구성된 법원에 속한다고 하지만, 여기서 사법권은 전통적인 사법권으로 헌법재판권을 아우르지 않는다. 그리고 헌법 제111조 제1항은 헌법재판소의 권한을 한정하는 것도 아니다. 이러한 점에서 법률을 통해서 헌법재판소에 선거재판권을 부여하는 것은 헌법적으로 문제가 없다.

선거방송과 관련된 법적·제도적 문제점 연구

문재완 한국방송공사 2006 방송 문화 연구 Vol.18 No.2

Election campaign rules should be designed to promote freedom of speech as well as to ensure fairness for political candidates in elections. The current election campaign act, however, put more value on securing fairness in elections than protecting freedom of election campaign. Though we can admit that the fairness doctrine is important during election days, it should not be taken for granted that freedom of speech can be neglected so long as we can expect fairness in elections. Current acts on broadcasting election campaign is comprised of three main parts: broadcasting political activities, election advertisements, and election debates. Under the current rules, the state is deeply engaged in finding out unfair programs by screening all programs after broadcasted during election days. I’m afraid that it might violate the freedom of speech. We can easily obtain fairness simply by affording equal opportunities to all candidates in the use of broadcasting stations. Also, considering the people’s right to know in election campaigns, more information on all candidates and their policies should be aired without chilling effect. Furthermore, the final decision whether a particular program is fair or not should be done in the court, not in the special institution established by the current act. Election advertisements, a kind of political speech, should get more freedom from government intervention. The state should find a way to lighten financial burdens on candidates for public office to meet the equal protection doctrine. Public broadcasting stations should air a certain number of election advertisements without charge. Finally, it should be mentioned that election debate is a good way to make election campaigns efficient with low cost as long as all candidates for public office are invited.

선거의 공정성과 언론의 역할 – 선거보도 심의제를 중심으로 –

이재희 한국헌법학회 2022 憲法學硏究 Vol.28 No.2

Considering the importance and influence of the media in elections, the request to ensure fairness in elections can also be applied to the media. Accordingly, the election reporting deliberation system was prepared to protect the fairness of election reporting. According to the Public Official Election Act, the Election Broadcasting Deliberation Committee, the Election Articles Deliberation Committee, and the Internet Election Reporting Deliberation Committee review the fairness of election reporting and decide to take proper measures. However, the scope of the Internet media outlets to which the deliberation of Internet election report should be applied is not clear, and the scope could be broadened according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee. In addition, there is a problem that the freedom of political expression may be excessively reduced in cases where the area of freedom of speech is not clearly distinguished with the area of election reporting. There are also problems that fairness standards are not clear, there is a limit to specificity, and it is not easy to judge in applying to actual cases. Moreover, internet media and new media have characteristics such as openness, easy access, non-exclusiveness, interactivity. Therefore, it may not be appropriate to apply the same regulations to the internet media as those for existed media. As the influence of internet media grows in the election process, it is required to ensure fairness. However, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of new media different from the existed media. For online expression in the election process, the diversity and openness of the media should be utilized rather than approached from a regulatory point of view. Through this, it is possible to seek to protect fairness in election. 선거에서의 언론의 중요성과 영향력을 고려할 때 선거의 공정성 확보 요청이 언론에 대해서도 적용될 수 있다. 이에 따라 선거보도의 공정성 확보를 위해 마련된 것이 선거보도심의제도이다. 공직선거법에 의거, 선거방송심의위원회, 선거기사심의위원회, 인터넷선거보도심의위원회에서 선거보도의 공정성을 심의하고 필요한 조치를 결정하도록 하고 있다. 그런데 이러한 선거보도심의제도는 심의의 적용대상에 있어서 특히 인터넷 선거보도 심의의 적용대상이 되는 인터넷 언론사의 범위가 명확하지 않고 심의위원회의 판단 여하에 따라 그 내용 및 범위가 얼마든지 넓어질 수 있다. 또한 선거보도심의의 대상이 되는 인터넷언론사의 선거보도와 온라인 선거운동의 자유 영역이 명확히 구분되지 않는 경우들에 대하여 정치적 표현의 자유를 지나치게 위축시킬 수 있다는 문제가 있다. 언론의 선거보도의 공정성을 확보하기 위하여 심의제도를 운영함에 있어서 공정성 기준이 명확하지 않고, 구체화에 한계가 있으며, 실제 사례에 적용하여 판단하기도 쉽지 않다는 문제가 있다. 더욱이 인터넷언론 및 그와 결합한 새로운 방식의 언론매체들은 개방성, 접근용이성, 비독점성, 쌍방향성, 확장성 등의 특성을 갖고 있는 것이어서 기존의 언론기관에 대한 것과 동일한 관점에서 규제를 적용하는 것이 적절하지 않을 수 있다. 선거과정에서 인터넷 매체들의 영향력이 커지면서 이에 대한 공정성 확보가 요청되는 것이지만, 기존의 언론매체와 다른 특수성을 고려하여, 선거과정에서의 온라인표현에 대해 규제적 접근보다 매체의 다양성, 개방적 특성을 활용한 공정성 확보를 모색할 필요가 있다.

시론(試論): 국회의원선거의 정치적 경쟁과 선거범죄 -17대∼20대 총선 분석

박명호,박세각 동국대학교 사회과학연구원 2019 사회과학연구 Vol.26 No.1

Election crimes are by-products of political environment where candidates vie for winning the election. For the purpose of analyzing the relationship between political competition for winning the election and election crimes, this essay measured the level of competition using the rank order of candidates in the number of votes they obtained and the difference in vote share between candidates. For this purpose, this essay analyzed the 17th through 20th general elections and found the followings: Firstly, in all the elections analyzed, the rank order of candidates in the number of election crimes perpetrated them and their assistants was exactly the same as the rank order of their vote share, which shows the impact of the chances of winning the election has on election crimes; Secondly, unlike the speculation that expects the more election crimes in the closer matches, the analysis on vote share difference between the winners and the runner-ups did not show coherent relationship. In the cases of the winners, election crimes were more frequent when vote share difference was more than 20 percent in the 17th and 19th general elections and more election crimes when vote share difference is 10 to 20 percent in the 18th and 20th general elections. In runner-ups' cases, they showed highest frequency of election crime when vote share difference was 5 to 10 percent in the 17th general election, and 10 to 20 percent in the 18th through 20th general elections; In addition, both the winners and the runner-ups showed relatively low frequency of election crimes when the vote share difference was less than 5 percent. When vote share difference was more than 20 percent, and thus competition is not considered as strong, the winners showed higher frequency of election crimes and the runner-ups showed lower frequency. 선거범죄는 선거에서 당선을 위한 정치적 경쟁의 산물이다. 본 연구는 당선을 위한 정치 적 경쟁이 선거범죄와 어떻게 관련되는 지에 대해 검토하고자 정치적 경쟁을 선거에서의 후 보자 득표순위와 득표율 차이로 측정했다. 정치적 경쟁과 선거범죄의 관계를 알고자 이 연 구는 17대 총선부터 20대 총선까지 선거범죄를 분석하여 다음과 같은 사항을 발견했다. 첫 째, 득표순위에 관한 분석결과 4회 총선 모두에서 1위 득표자, 2위 득표자, 3위 득표자, 4위 이하 득표자 순으로 선거범죄 발생빈도가 줄어들어 당선 가능성이 선거범죄 발생에 미치는 영향이 큰 것을 보여 주었다. 둘째, 1위와 2위 후보자 간의 득표율 차이에 관한 분석에서는 득표율 차이가 적을수록 선거범죄 발생이 많을 것이라는 예상과는 달리, 1위 득표자의 경우 17대와 19대 총선에서는 득표율 차이 20% 이상 구간에서, 18대와 20대 총선에서는 10∼ 20% 구간에서 선거범죄 발생빈도가 높았으며, 2위 득표자는 17대 총선에서 5∼10% 구간에서, 18대부터 20대 총선에서는 10∼20% 구간에서 가장 높은 선거범죄 발생빈도를 나타 냈다. 또한 5% 미만의 구간에서는 1위와 2위 득표자 모두 선거범죄 발생빈도가 비교적 적 었으며, 경쟁이 약한 20% 이상 구간에서 1위 득표자의 선거범죄 발생빈도는 매우 높아진 반면 2위 득표자는 매우 낮아지는 모습을 보이기도 했다.

선거 보안(Election Security)의 위협과 대응 방안: 미국의 제도 분석을 중심으로

이창규 ( Lee Chang-kyu ) 한국정치평론학회 2023 정치와 평론 Vol.32 No.-

Election security is to build an infrastructure that can conduct safe elections in order to ensure the reliability of the electoral system, which is the foundation of democracy. Election security is based on how to address evolving security threats in cyberspace, build physical and cyber infrastructure, and respond transparently and agilely. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Russian government used the U.S. social network service platform to publish fake news and damage the integrity of the election. The United States sees foreign governments interfering in elections and influencing citizens’ decision- making as a major danger to democracies. Threats to election security have combined attacks in cyberspace and manipulation activities in SNS, and the ripple effect has become serious. In order to establish election security, it is necessary to promote preparations and countermeasures by the government, parliament, political parties and organizations, media and platforms, and the people who are the electorate. To that end, we must first assess the risks of electoral infrastructure and formulate countermeasures. Second, it is necessary to form international norms against foreign election interference. Third, cyber election security must be established.

위탁선거범죄 방지를 위한 정책적 함의: 전국 동시조합장선거를 중심으로

한상철 한국교정복지학회 2019 교정복지연구 Vol.0 No.59

March 11, 2015 The First National simultaneous cooperative union presidents Election begins with a request for the elimination of illegal and illegal elections. The second round of elections was held. But still, 'clean elections' are not well established. There is a need for research in the fact that illegal elections are continuing. This study analyzed the actual situation of the upper election crime based on the 'foster election law' and the problems about prevention measures. We will draw policy proposals to prevent the election of the third national simultaneous cooperative union presidents in the future. The study raises questions about the direction of the election, which creates a situation in which felony electoral crimes are bound to occur. It is meaningful in that it suggests direction of research that should be done afterwards. And the policy reflects the policy in the cooperative union presidents that may be incentive through policy proposals on the matter. We will continue to conduct follow-up research so that it can be reflected in the policy. In addition, I would like to conduct good research to make it more 'clean election'. 2015년 3월 11일 제1회 전국동시조합장선거는 탈ㆍ불법 선거 근절위한 대한으로 시작되어 제2회의 위탁선거가 치러졌다. 그러나 아직도 ‘깨끗한 선거’의 정착은 미비하며, 탈ㆍ불법선거가 지속되고 있는 실정에서 연구의 필요성이 제기된다. 이 연구는 ‘위탁선거법’을 토대로 한 위턱선거범죄의 실태와 방지방안에 대한 문제점을 분석하여 앞으로 있을 제3회 전국동시조합장선거에 대한 방지방안을 정책적 제언을 도출한다. 이 연구는 위탁선거범죄가 발생 할 수밖에 없는 상황을 만드는 선거방향에 대해 문제를 제기하고 향 후 이루어져야 할 연구의 방향을 제시한다는 점에서 의미를 둔다. 그리고 그 문제에 대해 정책적 제언을 통해 향 후 있을 조합장 선거에 정책에 반영될 수 있도록 후속연구를 지속적으로 진행하고자 한다.

선거관리위원회의 위상과 역할에 대한 헌법적 고찰

홍석한 한국공법학회 2014 공법연구 Vol.42 No.3

Election Commission of Korea has contributed to the development of democracy through the expansion of power to clamp down on the Official Election Act violation. On the other hand, it is a fact that the controversy about fairness of election management has been increased and this phenomenon can be seen as the natural result from comprehensive and indefinite regulation-centered Official Election Act. It is also a fundamental cause of this phenomenon that the power of the Election Commission has been expanded without constitutional discussion. In this respect, now we should decide the desirable status and role of the Election Commission from the constitutional point of view and specifically institutionalize it's competence. Depending on this critical mind, this study finds out the right direction of the Election Commission and related legal systems, based on the analysis about the meaning of election management and the implications of the Election Commission's constitutional status. First, considering the constitutional function of election management and the structural features and provisions of Korean Constitution, we do not necessarily need to limit the Election Commission's role to passive administrative management model. Especially, focusing on the political reality and election-related legislations that can not satisfy the people's aspirations for democracy as well as the intent of the Constitution that is granting the status of an independent constitutional agency to Election Commission, election management should be recognized as a new power unanticipated in the classic separation of powers and the Election Commission should be granted an active role for political development. As a result, it can be decided that active political development model is suitable for the politically neutral agency, the Election Commission under the Constitution and the present situation of Korea. The Election Commission can contribute to political development in various ways, but it is required to check lawmakers for a revolution in regulation-centered Election Act prior to strict enforcement. Along with this, we need to come up with measures to strengthen the Election Commission's independence and prevent it's abuse of power. 선거관리위원회는 단속기능을 강화하는 권한의 확대와 함께 불법행위 근절을 위한 적극적인 활동을 통해 민주주의의 발전에 기여해왔다. 하지만 포괄적이고 불명확한 규제중심의 선거법 하에서 단속위주의 적극적 활동은 선거관리의 공정성과 관련된 논란을 확대시킬 수밖에 없다. 또한 그동안 선거관리위원회의 역할과 기능에 대한 구체적인 설계가 헌법적 토대를 갖추지 못한 채 진행되어 온 측면도 있는바, 이에 선거관리위원회의 바람직한 위상과 역할을 설정하고 그 구체적인 제도화를 위한 틀을 고민해야 하는 시점이라고 할 수 있다. 이러한 문제의식에 따라 본 연구는 선거관리의 헌법적 의의와 함께 헌법상 선거관리위원회의 지위 및 그 취지를 분석하고, 이에 기초하여 선거관리위원회가 나아가야할 방향과 이에 수반되어야 할 제도개선의 내용을 고찰하고 있다. 선거관리의 헌법적 기능과 헌법의 구조적 특성을 염두에 둘 때 선거관리는 국가기능으로서의 독자성이 없다거나 소극적인 행정관리에 한정된다고 해야 할 필연성은 도출되지 않는다. 즉, 선거관리를 고전적인 권력분립이 예상하지 못한 새로운 권력작용으로서 정치발전적 행정작용으로, 선거관리위원회를 기능적 권력통제를 실현하는 기관으로 이해하는 것도 가능하다. 따라서 선거관리위원회의 역할로서 어떠한 유형의 선거관리를 선택할 것인지는 정책적 판단의 문제에 속한다고 할 수 있다. 이에 선거관리위원회에 부여된 헌법적 지위, 민주주의의 성숙 앞에 가로놓인 우리의 정치적 현실이나 선거법제의 현황, 선거영역에서 입법권 남용의 위험성과 헌법재판소에 의한 통제의 한계 등을 고려할 때 오히려 선거관리위원회의 위상을 높게 설정하고 정치발전적 역할을 부여하는 것이 바람직하다고 할 수 있으며, 이를 위해서는 선거관리위원회의 독립성 확보와 선거관리위원회에 대한 통제가 병행되어야 한다. 이러한 관점에서 본고는 정치발전형 선거관리의 구체적인 내용 가운데 특히, 규제중심의 선거법체제를 변혁하기 위한 입법자 견제를 선거관리위원회의 우선적 역할로 보고 있으며, 이와 동시에 선거관리위원회의 위상과 역할을 강화하기 위한 전제조건으로서 독립성 확보 및 민주적인 통제를 도모하기 위한 방안을 제시하고 있다.

공직선거법상 선거운동의 개념으로서 목적의사와 목적범의 판단기준 - 대법원 2016. 8. 26. 선고 2015도11812 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -

김정연 한국형사법학회 2019 형사법연구 Vol.31 No.2

Supreme Court Decision 2015 Do 11812 The ruling of the Supreme Court is a judgment that brought about a turning point in the interpretation of the concept of election campaign in the election of public office. There is an evaluation of the object judgment as a step forward in interpreting the freedom of election campaign in the direction of protecting the freedom of the election campaign in the framework of the current public election law. However, the Supreme Court has to solve the problem through the change of legislation Some point out that they have judged the problem circumvented. In this respect, the object judgment was mainly the analysis and evaluation from the constitutional point of view, despite the form of the criminal judgment. However, the public election law prescribes constitutional elements of election - related penalty regulations in addition to the definition of election campaign. In this context, it is shown that the concept and scope of the election campaign is not only a constitutional issue of freedom of election campaign and fairness of election but also a criterion of whether or not the election campaign is applicable as a constituent element of criminal offense. The majority opinion of the judgment is objectively judged on the externally marked act whether or not there was an intention to elect a particular candidate in a particular election. And that it should be judged based on the situation at the time of the act in terms of the electorate, not the national or legal experts concerned with the election. The purpose crime is not to require positive motivation or definite awareness, but merely to have an unintentional recognition. In the interpretation of the concept of election campaign, the majority opinion of the judgment should be interpreted in a limited manner according to the principle of 'strict interpretation'. In the strict sense, it can be said that it is interpretation result rather than basis of interpretation or interpretation method. In the legal methodology, this interpretation is an objective interpretation considering the purpose of legislative election law, such as freedom of election and fairness. The majority opinion is interpreted in consideration of the fairness of election and freedom of election campaign. Although the evaluation of the judgment is based on the interpretation of the constitutional amendment law to guarantee the freedom of election campaign, it should be distinguished from the legitimacy problem of limitation of the current law on the interpretation of the concept of election campaign. Therefore, it is desirable to dispute the constitutionality of the election campaign or the prohibition of the pre - election campaign, or to seek a fundamentally legal solution. It is not reasonable to interpret it as a restriction of the concept of the election campaign itself and not as a prohibited campaign or pre-election campaign. 대법원 2016. 8. 26. 선고 2015도11812 전원합의체 판결은 공직선거법상 선거운동의 개념에 관한 해석론의 전환점을 가져온 판결이라 할 수 있다. 대상판결에 대해서는 현행 공직선거법의 틀 내에서 선거운동의 자유를 보다 두텁게 보호하는 방향으로 해석한 진일보한 판결이라는 평가도 있지만, 대법원이 사법적 판단의 영역을 벗어나 사실상 입법의 변경을 통해 해결하여야 할 문제를 우회적으로 판단하였다는 지적도 있다. 이러한 점에서 대상판결은 형사판결의 형식에도 불구하고 헌법적 관점에서의 분석과 평가가 주를 이루었다. 그러나 공직선거법은 선거운동의 정의규정 이외에 선거관련 처벌규정의 구성요건요소를 규정하고 있다. 이와 같은 공직선거법상의 조문 체계를 보면, 선거운동의 개념과 범위의 문제가 선거운동의 자유와 선거의공정성 확보라는 헌법적 관점에서의 문제뿐만 아니라 형사범죄의 구성요건요소로서 선거운동 해당 여부의 판단기준이 된다는 점을 보여준다. 대상판결의 다수의견은 특정한 선거에서 특정한 후보의 당선 또는 낙선을 도모한다는 목적의사가 있었는지 여부를 외부에 표시된 행위를 대상으로 객관적으로 판단하는데, 선거 관련 국가기관이나 법률전문가가 아닌 선거인의 관점에서 그 행위 당시의 상황에 기초하여 판단하여야 한다는 새로운 기준을 제시하였다. 대법원 2016. 8. 26. 선고 2015도11812 전원합의체 판결은 공직선거법상 선거운동의 개념에 관한 해석론의 전환점을 가져온 판결이라 할 수 있다. 대상판결에 대해서는 현행 공직선거법의 틀 내에서 선거운동의 자유를 보다 두텁게 보호하는 방향으로 해석한 진일보한 판결이라는 평가도 있지만, 대법원이 사법적 판단의 영역을 벗어나 사실상 입법의 변경을 통해 해결하여야 할 문제를 우회적으로 판단하였다는 지적도 있다. 이러한 점에서 대상판결은 형사판결의 형식에도 불구하고 헌법적 관점에서의 분석과 평가가 주를 이루었다. 그러나 공직선거법은 선거운동의 정의규정 이외에 선거관련 처벌규정의 구성요건요소를 규정하고 있다. 이와 같은 공직선거법상의 조문 체계를 보면, 선거운동의 개념과 범위의 문제가 선거운동의 자유와 선거의공정성 확보라는 헌법적 관점에서의 문제뿐만 아니라 형사범죄의 구성요건요소로서 선거운동 해당 여부의 판단기준이 된다는 점을 보여준다. 대상판결의 다수의견은 특정한 선거에서 특정한 후보의 당선 또는 낙선을 도모한다는 목적의사가 있었는지 여부를 외부에 표시된 행위를 대상으로 객관적으로 판단하는데, 선거 관련 국가기관이나 법률전문가가 아닌 선거인의 관점에서 그 행위 당시의 상황에 기초하여 판단하여야 한다는 새로운 기준을 제시하였다.