공직선거법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
On June 4, 2014, the defendant expressed his/her intent to provide the J with the position of "the head of the Sung-nam City City Urban Development Corporation, the president of the Sung-nam City Development Corporation, and the chairperson of the local committee in the Sung-dong area," etc., among candidates for the Sung-nam City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City City, on June 6, 2014. On the facts charged, the court below found the defendant guilty of the expression of intent to provide the position of "the chairperson of the regional committee in the Sung-nam City City," among the facts charged, and found the defendant guilty of the expression of intent to provide
Although the defendant and the prosecutor appealed against this, the prosecutor did not have any grounds for appeal on the part of innocence only on the grounds of appeal and not on the grounds of unfair sentencing as well as on the grounds of appeal, and the part of acquittal in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below was judged to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties. As such, in accordance with the theory of innocence in the judgment of the court below, the scope of the trial on this part is limited to the part
Therefore, the part of the lower judgment’s acquittal of the reasoning, that is, “an expression of intent on the direct provision of office by the chairman of the regional chairman of the regional chairman of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.”
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
In order to establish a purchase of a candidate and an inducement by interest as provided by Article 232 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act, there should be proof of “the circumstances in which the defendant can expect that he/she will provide a public position by exercising his/her influence over tangible or intangible punishment.”
However, without determining the above circumstances, the court below found a part of the facts charged in this case guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the above legal provisions, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.