공직선거법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant sent text messages to H political parties members by containing the contents of ordinary business reports or know-how as the chairman of the Council for Party Members of H Party I as stated in the judgment of the court below, which do not deviate from the scope of “ordinary political party activities” and thus cannot be deemed as sending them for election campaign purposes.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The article on the Defendant, published in October 2015 of the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the article of this case”) was aimed at improving the recognition and positive image of the Defendant as a politician.
There is an objective circumstance in which the elector can clearly recognize that the article was prepared to promote the election with a specific election purpose even if it can be seen,
It is difficult to see that it is a report on election under Article 97 (2) of the Public Official Election Act.
In addition, the defendant paid the fair magazine price to the publishing company of the relevant magazine, and it does not provide B, C with a separate benefit directly or individually, and when considering the timing of remittance of the magazine price or the legislative intent of the relevant laws and regulations, the amount paid by the defendant cannot be deemed as "providing gold goods" prohibited by Article 97 (2) of the Public Official Election Act.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine and mistake of facts.