A. Error of mistake

Although it was true that the Defendants agreed as stated in the facts charged regarding the election of the chairman of the △△△ Council, the Defendants did not carry out the above contents of the agreement when they were actually voting because co-defendant 4 alone does not need to put the mark in the prescribed location to prevent the escape slip, and therefore, the Defendants’ act alone does not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive scheme. Nevertheless, the lower court convicting the Defendants of the facts charged in this case, and erred

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendant: each fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the Defendants guilty on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence of each judgment, ① the rules of the △△ Council meeting, the rules of the △△ Council meeting provide that the chairman shall be elected by the attendance of the majority of the incumbent members and by the majority of the present members, and that the exception is not recognized in the case of single withdrawal, ② the first instance court co-defendant 4 in the election of the chairman at the overall △△△△△△ Council council, which was in fact the first instance court council, held the vote, held that Co-defendant 4 was elected by the chairman, ③ even though Co-defendant 4 was elected by the majority, there was still a need to prevent the escape check for the majority votes, ④ even if the Defendants and Non-Indicted 1 were to be elected by the single withdrawal, and ④ even if the Defendants and the non-indicted 1 entered the ballot paper in fact, the 7 persons are clearly marked in the name of the ballot paper, and the location of the ballot paper alone is not clearly distinguishable, but the Defendants were able to vote at the actual

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.).

Defendants’ act is highly likely to be subject to criticism as an act infringing on confidential voting, which is the basis of democracy, and there are no new changes in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In full view of the Defendants’ age, occupation, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as revealed in the arguments at the lower court and the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not heavier than that carried out within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Final Head of the District Court (Presiding Judge)