beta
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2017.04.18 2016노231

공직선거법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor's ex officio, the Prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the purport that "the part of the indictment in this case that "the victim was removed by knifeing the victim's head, knife the victim's head, knife the victim's head, and knife the victim's head, knife the victim's head, knife the victim's head, and knife the victim's head, knife the victim's head, and knife the victim's head, knife the victim's head

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the part that the defendant was removed by asking the head of the victim's head due to his entry is still subject to the judgment of this court after the amendment of the indictment, and this is examined below.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of fact-finding 1) The summary of the facts charged prior to the amendment is that the Defendant was a member of the D candidate’s election campaign who was going to the 20th presidential election district C.

On April 12, 2016, when the Defendant took a campaign speech claiming D’s support in front of the F point parked in E around 12:15 on April 12, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant carried out an election campaign against the victim H (52 years old) who was the head of the liaison office for the election of G candidate going out to the same constituency, such as shaking his hand and personnel management, etc., on the side of the above suspected vehicle, the Defendant took a bath to the victim, and asked the victim’s head car by asking him.

As a result, the defendant assaulted the president of the G candidate's election in connection with the election.

2) The lower court consistently stated that the Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged.