Attorney in charge 000,000

A. Defendant

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below is too unhued so as to be unfair.

2. Determination

The Public Official Election Act strictly regulates the duty of neutrality of public officials in order to ensure the fairness of elections by thoroughly planting room for intervention in elections or elections of public officials, while strictly regulating public officials not to engage in any conduct that may affect elections even if they do not reach an election campaign. Nevertheless, the crime is more serious in that the Defendant, using his status, instructed public officials who were under the direction and supervision of public officials to commit violations of the Public Official Election Act, thereby promoting their evasion of the law.

Upon receipt of the Defendant’s instructions, B sent to the Defendant data kept in custody or collected and arranged through the Defendant’s election planning company through C, who is a public official under his jurisdiction, to the Defendant’s election campaign bulletin production. In addition, the Defendant ordered D, who should be in charge of election affairs in his jurisdiction, to obtain contact information of the reported absentees and maintain neutrality. D, who was under his/her control, was able to grasp the contact information of the reported absentees and deliver it to the Defendant, and the Defendant violated the relevant provisions of the Public Official Election Act by using it.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Defendant was elected as a bit 221 attached to the Defendant’s bit 221, the Defendant’s preferential treatment cannot be deemed to be less than bitcos due to the above act of holding in-house election, such as B and D. Meanwhile, the Defendant, who had no criminal power prior to the instant case, served as the head of the Gun from July 2006 to faithfully endeavored for regional development, etc. is recognized as a favorable reason for sentencing.

In full view of these points and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, means and consequence, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

On the other hand, the defense counsel's assertion through the summary of the oral argument can not be a legitimate ground for appeal since it was kept only after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal. In addition, there is no reason to reverse the judgment of the court below after ex officio investigation and judgment, considering the aforementioned argument in detail.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Lee Young-chul

Maximumness