지방교육자치에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. On the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant asserts that the court below's punishment of 1.5 million won against the defendant (a fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unjust.
2. Determination of the Public Official Election Act is prepared to contribute to the development of democratic politics by ensuring that an election is held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and to prevent any malpractice related to the election, and there is a need for strict punishment for such offense. Furthermore, the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, where the defendant, who is unable to engage in an election campaign as a state public official, conducts an election campaign before the beginning of the election period, and further conducts an election campaign for a specific candidate. Furthermore, the crime of this case is committed against the purpose of the Public Official Election Act, etc. which prohibits an election campaign for a state public official
On the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and reflects the wrongness in depth, the defendant, an elementary school sports teacher, conducted a study on the method of lifelong and effective sports classes, and suggested him to meet the superintendent of the Office of Education on the day of this case, and the superintendent of the Office of Education seems to have committed the crime of this case in a somewhat interest and contingent manner in the mind that he would be able to be able to play a sense about the superintendent of the Office of Education, and that he committed the crime of this case. The amount of money and valuables provided by the defendant is relatively minor, and the crime of this case was committed only once before the election campaign begins, and was committed against a middle student who has no voting right, it seems that the influence on the election of the superintendent of the Office of Education is not significant, and that the defendant did not commit the crime on the ground that he is a teacher or a state public official, or that he was punished for the