2016Gohap42 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A

The paper of prosecution, the teared leather, and the public trial;

Attorney B (Korean Office)

July 19, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000. Where the Defendant does not pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day.

Criminal facts

The Defendant was a preliminary candidate for the 20th National Assembly member C election district. No one shall visit each door for election campaign or for the solicitation of joining or joining the National Assembly during the election period. Nevertheless, around 09:30 on March 4, 2016, the Defendant visited the National Assembly member in order to carry out an election campaign in the order of self-governing administration department, flag and inspection room, culture and tourism department, forest resources department, economic cooperation department, safety construction department and construction department, border area development department 1) located on the first and third floors of the 20th National Assembly member, and issued to the public official working there, stating, “A G”, “for regional development with the President”, “for the National Assembly member,” and “in order to support the election campaign from the 20th National Assembly member election, the Defendant visited the National Assembly member election.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement on H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, and Q;

1. Each report on internal investigation (the confirmation of the date of registration of a preliminary candidate, attachment of name cards of the person suspected of being suspected, whether the person under internal investigation was an office visited by the person under internal investigation, placement map of the F Gun Office, photograph of the F Gun Office, etc.);

1. List of preliminary candidates, and each name tag;

1. Allocation drawings, on-site photographs and photographs of the office buildings;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 255(1)17 and 106(1)(general) of the Public Official Election Act, and selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under the law: a fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 6 million;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of type] Violation of the method of election campaign in violation of the method of election campaign (Violation of the method of election campaign)

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] A fine of not less than 700,000 won but not more than 2 million won;

In light of the purport of the Public Official Election Act, which strictly limits the Act on the Prevention of Election Campaign by means of door-to-door visits prohibited by the Public Official Election Act, the Defendant visited the offices of the F.Gun Office in which many unspecified petitioners are free access, and the election campaign is carried out fairly in accordance with the free will of the citizens and democratic procedures, the nature of the crime cannot be deemed to be less light in light of the purport of the Public Official Election Act. However, the Defendant is a first offender with no criminal power, and the crime of this case is not likely to have a particular impact on the election. In light of the place of the crime and the type of the crime, it seems that there is no possibility that other illegal acts will be committed by door-to-door visits. Moreover, in light of the type of the crime, the Defendant’s punishment is determined as per the disposition in consideration of the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of this case, such as age, character and conduct, environment

Nowon-gu (Presiding Judge)

Maap Young-young

For static purposes

1) The prosecutor expressed this part of the facts charged as "offices such as the Border Area Development Group, etc." and visits by each unit, the continuity of which is recognized, are recognized.

Since the entire crime is related to a single comprehensive crime, each visiting person's office cannot be evaluated as a simple fact, and records.

In addition, it seems that the prosecutor's intent to visit an office other than the office mentioned in the above facts of crime is subject to prosecution.

Since it seems that the visiting act of an office specified in the facts constituting an offense is deemed to be the facts charged.