Daejeon: Not more than Daejeon;

Seo-gu, Daejeon: Omission

2. 임◎○ (57****-1******), 무직

Daejeon: Not more than Daejeon:

Reference domicile: Omission below Incheon Dong-gu

A. Defendants

The punishment of the court below (the fine of 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

According to the Public Official Election Act, an election campaign cannot be carried out before the close of the election day, and any person may recommend the participation in voting, but it shall not include any content supporting, recommending, or opposing a specific candidate.

The purpose of the Public Official Election Act is to punish a person who engages in an election campaign on the election day is to ensure that the election campaign on the election day is likely to have a direct influence on the choice of voters, so it is highly likely that the election campaign will be carried out indisrushly by candidates, so that the exercise of voting rights can be carried out in an orderly manner by maintaining the peace and cooling situation on the election day, and that it does not adversely affect the free and reasonable decision-making of electors by the election campaign on the election day.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, as the head of the election headquarters or election campaign worker of ○○○ who was elected by leaving as a candidate for the head of the Gu to which he belongs, have carried out an election campaign by sending text messages that encourage many people to participate in the election, including the appeal for support to ○○ on the election day, by impairing the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act. It is reasonable that the Defendants should be held liable corresponding to it.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendants divided their mistakes in depth and resisted; (b) the Defendants immediately suspended text transmission after being pointed out on the election day; and (c) the Defendants thought that the Defendants were fine even if inserted the phrase “domination” in text messages in accordance with the central guidelines of the Naruri Party, the Defendants would be deemed to have committed the instant crime; (c) the Defendants did not have any criminal power; and (d) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of the commission of the crime, means and method of the crime; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair or unreasonable as it is too uneasible.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants and the public prosecutor are without merit.

However, the following part of the judgment of the court below which clearly omitted the entry shall be corrected by adding it pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

[Attachment of 'Criminal Code' in the preceding 30th 9 and 10th 10 of the original judgment]

Judges Gangseo-do;

Judge Choi Jong-il