Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

가. 피고인 ⑴ 사실 오인 ㈎ 2014. 9. 23. 금품 제공으로 인한 공공단체 등 위탁선거에 관한 법률위반의 점 F가 피고인으로부터 100만원을 받았다고

The so-called “open Session” claiming is not a date of September 23, 2014, which is the date and time indicated in the facts charged, but was on August 25, 2014, and the Defendant did not have any factual difference between F’s house on September 23, 2014.

As such, the fact that the defendant did not have the F's house on September 23, 2014 is objectively confirmed by each fact confirmation document submitted by the defendant, R's testimony, etc.

The prosecutor stated the date and time of crime on September 23, 2014 that “the day following the receipt of one million won from the defendant was immediately returned to the defendant’s account,” but the prosecutor specified the F’s statement as the date and time of crime on September 23, 2014. However, one million won deposited to the defendant by F is only the rice straw payment that the defendant should receive, but not the money that the defendant provided as election campaign.

Furthermore, the F set the date of crime at around October 2014 or around November 1, 2014 at the first time, and specified the date and time of crime in line with the investigation process as of September 23, 2014, and refers to the “an open-end meeting” on which the first statement was not made on that basis, and it is difficult to believe the F’s statement itself, such as what is the Defendant’s statement about the criminal conduct on that day.

Although there are some circumstances, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

㈏ 2015. 1. 6. 허위사실 공표 등으로 인한 공공단체 등 위탁선거에 관한 법률위반의 점 및 명예훼손의 점에 대하여 ① 피고인은 J의 모친이 ‘ 집 앞’ 컨테이너에 산다고 특정하여 말한 사실이 없고, J의 진술에 의하더라도 모친이 컨테이너에 일정 기간 거주하였다는 점이 인정되므로, 피고인은 ‘ 허위사실을 공표’ 한 것이 아니고 발언 내용이 J의 ‘ 명예를 훼손’ 할 만한...