정당법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (a fine of KRW 1,000,000 is imposed on the violation of the Political Parties Act; a fine of KRW 300,000 is imposed on the violation of the Political Fund Act; and a penalty of KRW 2,350,000 is too unreasonable.
2. The responsibility of the accused for a violation of the current law of political party and political fund law is not easy to determine;
It is difficult to accept the defense counsel's assertion that there is no penalty.
Although long-term crimes are not of the same kind, they have been punished two times as fines.
The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.
The judgment below
There is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing as a result of the sentence.
In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed unfair.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is not reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In addition, according to Articles 191(1), 190(1), and 186(1) main text of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is right that the defendant bears the cost of lawsuit.
It is the cost of the witness incurred by the court below.
If an appeal is dismissed against the lower court’s judgment without any entry in the text and reasoning as to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit, the appellate court may hold a trial as to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit by adding the costs of lawsuit to the first instance court, and the bearing of the costs of lawsuit is not subject to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12840, Dec. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, the fourth-party judgment of the lower court is obvious that the “crime of an election for public office” is a clerical error, and thus, is corrected to the “Public Official Election Act.”