Residential Goyang-gu and Soyang-gu

Busan District Court Decision 201

2. Kim 00 (00000 - 000000) and public officials;

Housing Nowon-gu in Seoul

Seoul Nowon-gu

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the old house for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

Defendant Kim 00 is too difficult to prevent the Internet news articles in the manner of "00 or fewer than 00 m2 without the presence of 000 m2" following the Internet site around August 1, 2007 (Drums) from 0.0, and at the same time to 30 days after the election, the total of 40 days after 70 days after the election, as shown in the [Attachment 2] - 177 days after the election of 5 days after the election, and the total of 40 days after the election of 0 days after the 30th m3rd m27 days after the election, and the election of 40 days after the 5th m20th m27 days after the election of the 1st m3rd m200 m27 days after the election of the m3rd m200 m27 days after the election of the m200 m200 m2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Kim 00, Kim00

1. A report on investigation (place of access to the Internet), a reply to the request for cooperation in investigation (NA) and a reply to the request for the provision of communications data (the following):

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each e-mail output, each Internet output, and light0 related Internet output;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a notice of a document by unlawful means, 1 through 228 and 229 through 247 of the Criminal Act, 2-1 of the crime sight table 1 through 201 and 202 through 396 of the Criminal Act, 3-1 of the crime sight table 3-1 of the crime sight table 1 through 506 and 507 through 738 of the same Act are classified and classified by separate units; 2-2, 3-2, 4, 5 of the remaining crimes sight table by unit of each crime sight table); 25(2)3, 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act; and 30 of the Criminal Act by means of a notice of the intraparty competition under the same method as the document of the intraparty competition under the same Act.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Code (the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the posting of documents by the illegal means, the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the method of campaign for intra-party competition, and the punishment imposed on the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the posting of documents by the very heavy method)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Crimes of Concurrent Crimes committed by Table 3-1 Nos. 1 to 506 inclusive of 506) of each Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse;

The reason for sentencing in Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. An election campaign or intra-party competition campaign for a method not permitted by Defendant 10 is likely to interfere with the fair and reasonable judgment of electors and encourage competition. Considering the ripple power of the Internet in the modern society, the act of posting a legally offensive article on a representative Internet website that many people find through the Internet as in this case does not need to further increase such risk. In particular, since Defendant 10 did not simply express an individual opinion or evaluation of candidates, Defendant 10 did not instruct the subject and method of posting comments continuously with the purpose of affecting public opinion in the direction favorable to the candidate for a specific election campaign, and it was planned by Defendant 100 on a planned basis, such as receiving a report on the progress of writing comments periodically through Defendant 1, 100, and thus, it should be punished strictly. However, the effect that the crime of this case actually affected the election is not expected to be significant, Defendant 1’s mistake and other criminal facts in the process of sentencing are determined in consideration of the same kind of punishment as in this case.

2. Defendant Kim 00, in collusion with Defendant Park 00, actively encourage the participation of the Defendant in the crime to Kim 00, Kim 00, Lee00, and Lee 00, and actively participate in the selection and decision-making of the Internet site subject to the writing work and the working method to a considerable extent. However, Defendant Kim 00, at the request of Defendant Park Gyeong-soo, was involved in the crime of this case; the above Defendant recognized his mistake and reflected against the Defendant; the above Defendant did not have any criminal record; the Defendant did not have any criminal record; and other various sentencing conditions in the trial process of this case shall be determined as ordered by the Disposition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Spool

Judges Jeong Jeong-hee