공직선거법위반
The judgment below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant distributed bags containing his name and promotion of the medical care center as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below to the commercial owner, etc., which was committed as courtesy each year to promote the medical care center, and thus, did not affect the election. Thus, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine is based on the 6th nationwide local election conducted on June 4, 2014, as the president of the D Care Center located in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “local election”).
(2) From December 27, 2013 to early February 2014, the election of council members of the Gwangju Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council: (a) from around 27, 2013 to early 2014, the Defendant distributed 1,200 bags containing the name of the Defendant, together with F and G, to commercial owners, etc.; and (b) on the premise that the Defendant distributed printed materials, including the Defendant’s name, printed materials, and leaflets, etc. in order to influence the election. (c) On the premise that “in order to influence the election” under Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the Defendant was guilty of having limited the acts set forth above, other than intentional acts, for the purpose of committing a crime with the “purpose to influence the election” as an element to establish the crime, and not with positive or final awareness, but with respect to the purpose thereof, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant distributed 1,200 bags to the commercial owners, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1300.