공공단체등위탁선거에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is true that the Defendant prepared and sent to the members of the NAC on February 2, 2015, prior to the election campaign period, printed matters related to F, a candidate for the president of the NAF, with regard to the facts stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment below.
However, this is not the defendant's prior election campaign because it was carried out as CF auditor regardless of the president's election.
2) As to the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 2 of the holding of the court below, there was no purpose to prevent the Defendant from winning the F, and there was no false fact in part of the contents entered in the printed materials sent by the Defendant, but there was no false fact as a whole, since the important part is consistent
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court’s judgment. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that (i) the Defendant did not distribute the audit opinion to union members during the period of his/her term of office as an auditor, as well as the Defendant himself/herself paid the expenses incurred in sending printed matter under the name of the Defendant, although the Defendant was two auditors, the Defendant was prepared and sent the printed matter; (ii) the content of the printed matter was pointed out the error of the president of the F Association; (iii) the Defendant’s act of leading the union to the union; and (iv) the time when printed matter was sent (the time when the Defendant was a preliminary candidate before the election of union head as the time when the Defendant was present at the presentation session for guidance as the preliminary candidate) and found guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s finding of the above facts is correct.