If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On December 11, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 19:50 on December 11, 2012, the election campaign worker E (n, 43 years old), and F (n, 56 years old) who was engaged in an election campaign for winning a candidate for the 18th presidential election in the Changdong Station No. 134, Changdong-dong, Dobong-gu, Seoul, for the 18th presidential election, carried out an election campaign (n, 43 years old) around the 18th presidential election; (b) whether he was paid money to anyone; (c) whether he was an election campaign; (d) whether he was carried out with money; (e) whether he was carried out an election campaign; and (e) whether he was carried out in the ground with a sound, fry, and laid away a cigarette butts; and (d)

As a result, the defendant assaults the election campaign workers in relation to the election.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. Each written statement;

1. A report on investigation (to hear statements from victims, such as whetherCCTV is secured);

1. A copy of each election campaign worker certificate, or a facsimile report on the replacement of election campaign workers;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 237 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act (Selection of Fines);

1. former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes (Aggravation of concurrent crimes prescribed for a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act with heavy penalty)

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant asserted that the defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol

In light of the records, although the defendant could drink before committing the crime, in light of various circumstances, such as the background, means and method of the crime of this case, and the defendant's act before and after the crime, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion.