공직선거법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As a vice-chairperson of the GSpecial Meeting (hereinafter “Special Meeting”), the Defendant’s contribution act due to erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (i.e., provision of food) pays the support money in accordance with the resolution of the special meeting, and delivered it to I who is the chairperson, and the Defendant did not have calculated the meal expenses by delivering the support money to I (W).
The defendant's 500,000 won delivered to I falls under "any obligation under the operational practices of the special meeting and any membership fee paid within the previous scope by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders" and does not constitute a contribution act as permitted pursuant to Article 112 (2) 2 (e) of the Public Official Election Act.
Even if the act constitutes a contribution act, illegality is excluded because it does not violate the social rules as a formal act or an official act.
Shebly, the Defendant does not officially express that he will go to the election of a Si council member in the instant meal page, but rather, when it is anticipated that the AF belonging to the same special meeting will go out of the City, the Defendant advises him to the effect that he will be judged as his right holder, and the Defendant provided his advice to the latter so that he can be determined as his right holder, and the said speech does not constitute an advance election campaign accompanying the intention of promoting the election of the Defendant or the defeat of another candidate.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the act of donation due to provision of food, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant made a contribution as described in paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of original adjudication by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in its judgment. The video taken at the time of January 28, 2014, is the table that the proprietor and the Defendant fluor provided the food in a situation where the Defendant flussium and the Defendant flusium were in the future.