When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

From March 5, 1975 to July 23, 1975, the Defendant retired from △△ High School. On February 17, 2012, the Defendant completed a master’s degree course at the administrative information department and management administration graduate school at △△△△ University and did not have obtained a master’s degree.

1. From April 16, 2014 to May 22, 2014, the Defendant distributed approximately 5,40 copies of preliminary candidates, stating “△△ High School” and “△△△△△ University Management and Administrative Graduate School Master” in the academic background column, to the head of the ○○○ Chapter located in the Dong-dong, Bupyeong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and published false facts about the academic background for the purpose of election.

2. Around May 21, 2014, the Defendant submitted 7,400 copies of election campaign bulletins and 70 campaign posters, stating that “△△ High School is retired from the middle of the △△ High School” without stating the academic background column, to the said ○○ Election Management Committee, without stating the educational duration. Around that time, the Defendant sent 7,355 copies of the election campaign bulletins to the electorates, and had the said ○○ Election Management Committee send 7,355 copies of the election campaign bulletins to the electorates, and attached 8 campaign posters in the election district, such as a sign, a sign, etc., and published false facts as to the academic achievement for the purpose of election.

3. From May 23, 2014 to June 3, 2014, the Defendant issued approximately 3,000 copies of the candidate’s name cards stating “△△ High School” in the academic background column, and published false facts about the academic achievement for the purpose of winning the election.

1. Partial statement of the Nonindicted Witness

1. A written confirmation of the Nonindicted Party

1. Each investigation report;

1. A written accusation;

1. Certificates of passing and removal from the military register;

1. Details of the production of name cards;

1. A copy of an election campaign bulletin, a copy of each name tag, a copy of the election campaign bulletin, and a copy of campaign posters;

Articles 250(1) and 64(1) of the Public Official Election Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Of the 6,000 preliminary candidates’ name cards of this case, 1,000 copies first produced were rarely recovered due to the poor printing situation, and 2,000 copies produced last were added with the phrase “Completion of a master course.” Since 600 copies were not distributed, 2,400 copies (=6,000 copies - 1,000 copies - 2,000 copies - 600 copies) of the name cards of preliminary candidates, which were erroneous in the academic background of a graduate school, are all 2,40 copies.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that he distributed approximately 5,400 copies of the name cards containing false academic background as shown in the facts charged. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is without merit.

A. The defendant responded that he did not distribute more than 500 to 600 copies of the preliminary candidate's name cards at an investigative agency and did not distribute more than 500 to 600 copies to question whether there are several pages (Evidence No. 62, 124). The defendant asserted that he recovered most of the printed forms of 1,000 copies first produced, other than 50 to 600 copies, as mentioned above, from 50 to 600 copies of the first produced at the court. Thus, the above assertion is not consistent and it is difficult to believe that there are no materials to support them.

B. The Defendant alleged that the last 2,00 of the 6,000 preliminary candidates were added to the phrase “the completion of a master course,” but the Nonindicted Party, who produced the Defendant’s name cards, stated that the Nonindicted Party was produced only by three preliminary candidates at an investigative agency (Evidence No. 77 page of the Record), and that there is no such phrase among three of the three of the designs before and after the revision.

C. Meanwhile, the Nonindicted Party testified that the last 1,00 of the 6,000 preliminary candidate’s name cards were added to the Defendant’s order for revision. However, it is not clear whether the Nonindicted Party witness revised the name cards of the preliminary candidate at the investigative agency or revised the name cards from the candidate’s name. However, on May 12, 2014, the Nonindicted Party stated that the Nonindicted Party stated that the name cards of the preliminary candidate were revised from the candidate’s name (Evidence No. 77 of the evidence record), and that the delivery date of the name cards of the preliminary candidate was the same (Evidence No. 77 of the record), and that the Nonindicted Party stated that the Nonindicted Party’s name cards of the preliminary candidate were delivered at once on May 12, 2014, and that the Nonindicted Party’s name cards Nonindicted Party 2,000 were delivered at once (Evidence No. 376 of the witness’s name cards).

2. Scope of recommended sentencing guidelines: Fines of two million won to eight million won.

[Determination of Punishment] Group of Election Crimes, Publication of False Information, Slanders for Candidates, and Publication of False Information for Election Purposes (Type 2)

[Special Convicts] Reduction element: Where the degree of publication of false facts is weak;

Aggravation: Criminal records of the same kind;

[Scope of Recommendation] Fine of 2 million won to 8 million won (Basic Area)

[General Sentencing] Reduction element: Serious reflect

3. Determination of sentence: Fine of two million won; and

Although the defendant seems to have recognized and reflected some crimes, since the publication of false facts about candidates can cause electors to make an accurate judgment on candidates, it is necessary to strictly prohibit them. The defendant committed the crime of this case even though the election campaign bulletin of the 5th local election had already been problematic by stating false facts about academic background as the graduation from △△ High School in the election campaign bulletin of the 2010, and the defendant did not correct it even though he had an opinion that the election commission's employee stated the period of study in the election campaign bulletin around May 17, 2014, and delivered the name of the candidate stating "△△ High School" in the educational career column as stated in paragraph (3) of the decision, and there was only one history of punishment for violation of the official election law, it is inevitable to punish the defendant accordingly.

In full view of these circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, career, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the oral argument, the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines.

Judges (Presiding Judge) For transfer (Presiding Judge)