Case on Election Campaign by Teacher via Social Networking Service [2016Hun-Ma1071, February 27, 2020] In this case, the Court ruled that a mere act of simply sharing another user’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) on a personal Facebook account telling that a specific candidate was lying, before the 20th General Election. The Complainant was charged of unlawfully engaging in an election campaign by sharing such post. However, the Respondent, who is 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 pursuant to the Public Official Election Act but the criminality of that act 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. - 9 -