A. In relation to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the damage to the forms of voting among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts, it was destroyed in the process of taking the Defendant’s husband D from the Defendant’s voting paper, not intentionally damaging the Defendant’s voting paper.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court found that the Defendant intentionally damaged the papers for proportional representation voting distributed to D on the ground that the Defendant entered her husband D and the balloting booth was removed from the advance polling management officer E, and that the Defendant intentionally destroyed the teared ballot papers for proportional representation.

On the other hand, the defendant's argument is rejected and the charges are convicted.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby rejecting the Defendant’s assertion of mistake

① At the advance polling station on the day of the instant case, E was a person who worked as a voting management officer at the advance polling station, and at the investigative agency and the court of the original trial, “E” and “the Defendant’s sound, and the Defendant’s voting at the polling station in which D cast his vote to the Defendant, and the Defendant cut off the form of proportional representation ballot paper received by D as his hand.

“A statement to the effect that it conforms to this part of the facts charged, such as “,” is specific and consistent, and contradictory to the statement in light of the empirical rule.