2. B

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendant converted each one million won into one day.

by attracting persons in a workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

56 copies of the article 56 copies of the article, stating the intention to resolve the coal power plant of the free Republic of Korea (Evidence).

No. 1), 5 copies of the article, i.e., the free coal power plant of the free Republic of Korea (certificate), i.e., five copies of the article.

Sub-paragraph (2) shall be forfeited from Defendant B.

Defendants are volunteers of the candidates C (Free Korean Party) who were going to the special election for the Macheon City implemented on April 12, 2017.

Except as provided for in the Public Official Election Act, no person shall distribute, spread, post, post, or affix a new letter, communication, magazine, or an institution, organization, facility site, or other publication that carries an article related to the election by any means other than ordinary methods, or make a copy of such article to distribute, spread, post, or affix it.

1. Defendant B

On April 10, 2017: (a) around 00, the Defendant issued a newspaper technician of title C, who is favorable to the above candidate C, from the office of election of the candidate for the C market at the 4th floor of the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, 73 ○○ building, on April 9, 2017, and distributed the newspaper in a way other than that of ordinary methods, by inserting 60 copies of the newspaper technician of title C, which is favorable to the above candidate C, from among the newspaper news news article of Incheon Incheon Incheon, as of April 9, 2017.

2. Defendant A

On April 10, 2017, at around 30:30, the Defendant issued 60 copies of the article reproduced and kept by B as set forth in paragraph (1) and distributed to approximately 10 persons passed at the center of Mancheon City, Gacheon-ro, 87, Mancheon-ro, Mancheon-ro, Mancheon-ro, and distributed newspapers in a way other than ordinary ways.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants (e.g., one descriptive type)

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Protocols of seizure, lists of seized articles and photographs thereof;

1. A report on internal investigation (Securing and analyzing surrounding CCTVs, and characteristics of distributors);

1. A report on internal investigation (including the situation at the time of appointment of an election situation room and accompanying materials);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Articles 252(3) and 95(1) of the Public Official Election Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Fine not exceeding 6 million won;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria: The scope of the recommended sentencing criteria shall not be set.

3. Determination of sentence: Fine of 80,000 won; and

The purpose of the Public Official Election Act is to ensure the legitimacy of state power and to contribute to the maintenance and development of democratic politics by ensuring that public elections, which are the basis of democratic politics, are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures and by preventing any malpractice related to the election. In light of the legislative purpose, etc. of the Public Official Election Act, the crime of this case committed by copying and distributing examinations, other than ordinary methods, which have strong propagation and have a significant impact on the formation of public opinion, is the crime of this case.

It cannot be deemed that it is light.

However, the defendants recognized their mistakes and oppose the defendants, did not have the same criminal record, and distributed newspapers for the purpose of promoting the policy of support candidates rather than for the purpose of slandering other candidates. The number of newspapers reproduced and distributed by the defendants is not so large that they did not have any influence on the election. The defendant A distributed only part of the newspapers reproduced and kept by the defendants Eul, and other reasons for the normal participation, such as the defendants' age, character and behavior, personality and behavior, family relation, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which were shown in the arguments of this case, are determined as ordered in consideration of the sentencing conditions.

Judges Kang Jae-sung

Judges Park Sang-young