공직선거법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 80,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant paid KRW 600,000 to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) as indicated in the facts charged, but this does not mean that it was paid in connection with the report on the election.
In addition, the article of this case contains contents related to political activities.
In doing so, it cannot be said that “report on election” under Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act is “report on election.”
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Election of Public Officials, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the relevant legal principles.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted that this part of the appeal is similar to the allegation in the grounds of appeal.
The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, the article of this case was: (b) the Defendant notified the 20th National Assembly member election that the article of this case would be sent to the 20th National Assembly member candidate; (c) notified the Defendant that there was no suspicion for the Defendant; (d) the Defendant’s opinion on the official election in a political party; and (e) informed the Defendant that there was no suspicion for the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s distribution of the Defendant’s distribution concerning the parliamentary activities in a local constituency scheduled to go out; and (e) constitutes a “report on election” as prescribed by Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act; and (e) the Defendant paid 6
A) The prosecutor’s office and the court below’s statement of G reporter I, who correspond to the facts charged, are consistent as a whole, and there is no motive to make a false statement, and credibility exists.
I "Pelman on August 2015".