공직선거법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (2.5 million won in penalty, 2.5 million won in penalty, suspension of sentence) is deemed unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case is a case where the Defendant teared the form of the voting, which was cited by the voting clerk, on the ground that his spouse was waiting close to the balloting booth while his spouse puts in the voting place where the 19th presidential election is held.
The court below held that the crime of this case infringes on the peace of voting by tearing the paper of voting at the voting place where the election for public office, which is the basis of democratic politics, and thereby interferes with the smooth performance of election affairs, and the quality of the crime is light.
Considering the fact that the defendant cannot be seen as an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, ① as the defendant was forced to wait close to his spouse in the process of voting together with his spouse, the defendant committed the crime of this case contingently, ② as there was no intention or political purpose to interfere with election affairs at the time, ② as there was no other disturbance, and ③ as there was no other disturbance, ③ as the defendant recognized his mistake, and is in a profound degree of interference with election affairs, ④ as well as the fact that there was no other force to commit the crime other than twice in the past 13 years, the defendant was sentenced to punishment by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, such as character, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime.
Examining the lower court’s sentencing of the Defendant on the basis of the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, as indicated in the records and arguments in the instant case, the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the overall circumstances related to the sentencing, which were expressed in the process of pleadings in the instant case, and otherwise, the lower court’s sentencing is to be changed in the first instance court.