beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2016노3743

경범죄처벌법위반

Text

We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant did not mislead customers, etc. at the time and place of the offense in the judgment of the first instance, and only distributed the ordinary leaflet.

2. Determination:

A. The facts charged in the instant case are as follows: “Around April 28, 2016, the Defendant divided a leaflet stating “E” into many and unspecified persons in front of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D on the street around April 28, 2016, and “Isk during the new discount event.”

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

It means that an entertainment act, such as referring to a large interest, was committed.

“......”

B. The part of the party members’ judgment (i.e., the prosecutor’s act of soliciting customers regardless of the purpose of business at a place where several people gather or frequent, which served as part of the facts charged in the instant case, under the proviso of Article 3(1)8 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which served as part of the Defendant’s charged facts in the instant case. The part that the Defendant took part in the leaflet as stated in the facts charged from the control to the trial of the party, and that the Defendant did not engage in an act of soliciting customers, such as a fact or sound.

The evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case is the full statement at the court of first instance and the record of the F’s control over the preparation of the F, a traffic control police officer. In full view of the following circumstances indicated in the instant case, F’s statement, etc. is difficult to believe and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, there is a strong doubt that the Defendant, while simply distributing a leaflet to customers, was not a police officer, who controls her friendly fly to the customers individually, by misunderstanding that the Defendant f, who is a police officer, was not a candidate under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act [Article 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, Article 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act shall pay careful attention not to infringe the rights of the people, so that the Defendant may not infringe the rights of the people, and shall not apply this Act for other purposes without permission.