beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.09 2016노1219

공공단체등위탁선거에관한법률위반

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the charge of violation of the Act on Entrusted Election by public organizations, etc. due to contribution act, although the defendant's payment of meal costs to 11 members G is sufficiently recognized as contribution for B to run in the election of the president of the E cooperative, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, no person may make, or have another make, a contribution to, the relevant entrusted election for a candidate (including a person wishing to become a candidate) during the contribution-restricted period (from 180 days before the expiration date to the election day).

Defendant

A around December 18, 2014, around the point of occupation, at the I cafeteria located in Singu, Sinung-si, to 11 members of the K, who intend to become a candidate for the head of the E association, and paid the sum of meal costs to 11 members of the E, including the sum of meal costs to 11 members of the E, by credit card (a approximately KRW 17,833 won per head).

Accordingly, the defendant made a contribution act for B to be a candidate in relation to the election of the president of the E partnership during the period of contribution restriction.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant introduced B at a G meeting as indicated in the facts charged on December 18, 2014, and that G used membership fees of KRW 20,000 from members each time of an ordinary meeting to cover meal expenses. The Defendant opened on December 18, 2014.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, a large number of members present at G meetings on December 18, 2014.