If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

No one shall assault, threaten, or induce an elector, candidate, or person who intends to become a candidate, election campaign manager, election campaign clerk, accountant in charge, election campaign speechmaker, or elected person, or illegally arrest or detain him/her, with respect to an election.

Nevertheless, around 07:45 on April 3, 2020, the Defendant, in front of the 21st election district of the 21st National Assembly member, got out of the victim F, an election campaign worker of the E candidate, who was an election campaign worker of the 21st National Assembly member, in the election district of the 21st National Assembly member, and reported the election campaign by taking the scket for public relations campaign and scam the above scam to the victim.

As a result, the Defendant assaulted the victim, who is an election campaign worker, at the same time, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the following lights and the pelvis in need of treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning field photographs, diagnostic reports, and field film materials on violence;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 237 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act (the point of violence committed by election clerks), Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury), and the selection of each fine;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishments imposed on a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act heavier than punishment);

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that, at the time of preventing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to the polar impulse disorder.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the defendant is deemed to have been hospitalized and outpatientd due to stimulative disorder from June 2001 to the recent years, and evidence with existing symptoms of mental illness, etc., but the defendant is deemed to have been hospitalized and outpatientd.