공직선거법위반
The punishment against the Defendants shall be prescribed by a fine of one million won.
The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.
Criminal facts
Defendant
B was a candidate for D City Council members (E) of national simultaneous local elections on June 13, 2018 implemented on June 13, 2018.
F's spouse, Defendant A was an accountant in charge of the election campaign office for F candidate.
Except as prescribed by the provisions of the Election of Public Officials Act, no one shall distribute, post, spread, screen or post any content of support, recommendation or opposition of a candidate in order to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day, or printed matters, etc. indicating the name of a candidate.
Nevertheless, at around 11:00 on May 14, 2018, the Defendants conspired to distribute the name cards containing F’s pictures, career, etc. from G apartment 104, and Defendant B indicted Defendant B on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B distributed the name cards to two of the above G apartment 104 units (2 units on each floor of 15 stories and 1Ra); and (b) Defendant B distributed the name cards to two of the above G apartment 104 units (2 units on each floor of 15 stories and 15 stories).
However, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone distributed name cards to all the households in the above two Ra by Defendant B.
It is insufficient to view.
However, Defendant B distributed 25 name cards to one police.
Since the statement is stated (67 pages of evidence), about 50 households, such as the statement in the column of the above crime history (=25 x 2 households), it is deemed that the name cards were distributed.
Defendant
A A was indicted with the content that, among the above apartment units, approximately 40 to 50 households were distributed to the 3 Ra in the above G apartment units, Defendant A distributed name cards to 90 households (=3Ra x 2 households x 15 floors) on the ground that Defendant A distributed name cards to 3 Ra in the above G apartment units.
However, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone distributed name cards to all the households in the above three Ra by Defendant A.
It is insufficient to see, however, that Defendant A made a statement that he/she was memoryed by distributing the name cards of 4 to 50 in this court, and thus, the above crime history is disturbed.