공직선거법위반
All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1: (a) On April 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened a P-owned land, which is expected to live after being released from the position of the president of the D organization; and (b) set up a meeting at “I” located in H (hereinafter “instant meeting”) for the purpose of putting the members of the G Gun branch on the opportunity.
Although F candidates were able to attend the meeting of this case through the O which is the cause of the implementation in G military, there was no intention for the Defendant to make a contribution on behalf of F candidates.
① This is also confirmed by the following: (a) all persons who have attended the instant meeting were the persons related to G military branch; (b) the instant meeting was a place to commission those related to G branch members who had been available during the period when the Defendant was able to take into consideration home after leaving the meeting; (c) the Defendant’s statement at that place was part of the entire statement; (d) the F candidate’s statement at that place was merely a part of the Defendant’s statement; (e) the F candidate did not put in or support the Defendant’s statement while speaking on the part related to the aged among the matters related to the instant meeting; and (v) the F candidate made a statement at the time when the instant meeting was almost finished, and there was a part that should be considered as a usual campaign of the candidate.
Even if not,
Even if the defendant paid the share of the meeting of this case, he paid the share of the corporation card in the name of D organization toO in order to pay the share of the meeting of this case, but the O paid the share of the personal money (cash) at his own discretion at the mind that he wanted to be well seen by the defendant.
Therefore, since a person who actually contributed to the ceremony is anO other than the defendant, it cannot be said that the defendant violated the Public Official Election Act.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.