If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a person who has been in charge of the support of candidate tax, application for voting witness, and other administrative support for the candidate as D of the members council of Gwangjin-gu Do party, Jeonyang-si party, Jeonyang-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was implemented on June 4, 2014.

In connection with the sixth-time nationwide local election, there are eight polling stations located in 48 places and voting witnesses for each polling station, but each Eup/Myeon/Dong election commission shall designate a witness by lot after receiving an application from those who desire to become a witness.

On June 3, 2014, the Defendant urged the employees of the election commission, such as the victim G (age 40), who called “(age 40), to be selected as a witness for the application of a political party,” at the Mayang-si election district (alley-dong and Mamadong) where the C Party E was going to a F candidate, and there were two voting witnesses at the Mayang-dong Elementary School and Middle-dong, and the Mandong Elementary School and Secondary School, and called to the office of the Mayang-si election commission, and called to the Mayang-si election commission (age 40).”

However, when the victim et al. refused to “Procedurally impossible,” the Defendant appealed against it, and the Defendant sent the victim a witness to the victim, stating that “I will send him/her to the witness. If he/she is wrong, I will be relieved of the inside.”

Around 06:00 on June 4, 2014, the Defendant sent two (3) witnesses to the Jinyang Elementary School, and the Magyang Elementary School, but the election commission failed to observe the election commission; (4) at around 06:35 on the same day, the Defendant sent the victim a cell phone call to the office of the election commission office in Mayangyang-si, H apartment 210 Do 403; and (3) threatening the victim to “I want to send the witness to the polling station. If I do not want to go to the election commission and the election commission.”

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim who is an employee of the election commission.

Summary of Evidence

Defendant.