If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At the 19th election for a National Assembly member, the Defendant thought that the above D election campaign has been carried out in the same kind of relationship as D, which was prepared to go out to the candidate for the C party in the constituency.

On September 10, 201, from around 12:00 to 13:00, the Defendant attended the Jinju-si Einscination conference, and the F-friendly gathering to the effect that the above D “I wish to leave the intra-year total line, which is different from that of the closed members,” and claimed for support, the Defendant was unable to make a contribution for a candidate (including a person who wishes to become a candidate) in connection with the election. However, for the above D, the Defendant paid KRW 368,00 of the meal price for 23 family members who participated in the above gathering, such as G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, N, N, andO, by settling 368,00 won of the meal price with the Defendant’s agricultural agricultural cooperative card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning H and G;

1. Each police statement made to I, J, K, H, L, G, andO;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a list of participants, a copy of the Nonghyup Card, and a copy of a card settlement receipt;

1. Article 257 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act and Articles 115 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to contribute to the development of democratic politics by ensuring that elections are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures. As such, there is a need for strict punishment corresponding thereto for acts violating the Public Official Election Act. The act of making an act of violating the Public Official Election Act may interfere with the establishment of a fair election culture, and the result may depend on the ability of funds rather than the policy or knowledge of the candidate in an election, thereby undermining the fairness of election. In light of the above, Defendant’s liability is not easy.

However, this case.