The punishment sentenced by the court below (the fine of KRW 2.5 million for the violation of the Public Official Election Act, and the fine of KRW 1.5 million for the violation of the Public Official Election Act) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

The Defendant found out the way of election campaign workers in front of the election for the National Assembly member, and seized 1 diskettes, which are goods for election campaign, which are goods for election campaign, which were goods for the campaign at the same time, from among the election campaign workers, to the election campaign workers. Moreover, instead of taking such measures, the Defendant led the victim who was a volunteer and was taking such actions for about 10 minutes, and suffered bodily injury, such as fluoral sium, etc. to the victim. The Public Official Election Act provides that the Defendant severely punished the same kind of general crimes where the freedom of election is obstructed so that a fair election may be held in accordance with free will of the people and democratic procedures, compared to the case where the Defendant committed the same kind of general crimes, and without any justifiable reason, the Defendant took 21th election campaign workers’ goods used for election campaign, which were in force, and obstructed the victim’s freedom by assaulting the victim, and the Defendant did not have any considerable influence in the process of using the same kind of election campaign worker. In particular, the Defendant was punished against the victim during the shortest type of election campaign.

However, the Defendant took the attitude of recognizing and opposing the victim’s wrong act from the investigation process to the court of the court below. Although the Defendant made a vindication to the purport that he only saw the victim’s mother and child part as to the crime of injury and did not directly engage in the crime of injury, it does not seem to have the purport of completely denying the crime of injury, and furthermore, after the judgment of the court of the court below was rendered, it is against the Defendant’s depth by recognizing all the facts of the crime of injury. Furthermore, it is not likely that the Defendant does not seem to have committed an offense with a clear purpose or intent to interfere with election campaign, and it is difficult to view that the degree of injury suffered by the victim is very heavy. Moreover, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s crime committed by the Defendant that the freedom of election campaign was seriously infringed due to the victim’s crime, or that there was a serious obstacle to the formation of free and fair election culture. The Defendant appears to have never been subject to criminal punishment prior to the death of the victim by telephone and the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal in the trial at the court of appeal are deemed to have been sufficiently considered in the process of determining the punishment, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the trial at the court of appeal. Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions in the arguments in this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, the means and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing guidelines determined by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below as it does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion. The prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judge Thai-man