2016Gohap63 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A

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

Law Firm B

Attorney C

November 15, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall have the period converted 100,000 won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

Criminal facts

The Defendant was a preliminary candidate for the 20th National Assembly member D, E, F. G. H. A. A. A. a political party in H local constituency.

No one shall visit door to door for an election campaign or for the solicitation of admission during the election period.

그럼에도 불구하고, 피고인은 2016. 2. 29 . 11:30경 J에 있는 F군청에서, 정당을 상 징하는 파랑색 점퍼, 모자 및 "기호 2번 A" 이라고 적힌 어깨띠를 착용한 채로 별관1 층 주민복지과, 경로가족과 사무실을 방문하여 그곳에 근무 중인 공무원들에게 " 일 잘 하고 겸손한 진짜 일꾼 A!", "중국통으로 통하는 정치인", "큰 인물! 큰 일꾼! 2 A"이라 고 기재된 명함을 교부하며 제20대 국회의원 선거에서 지지를 호소하였다.

In addition, on March 2, 2016, at the F Livestock Industry Cooperatives Office located in J around 15:17, the Defendant visited the two-story general department, guidance department, distribution department and office at a different level and complained of support from the 20th National Assembly members election in the same manner as the above mentioned.

Accordingly, the defendant laid off the FF military office and the FF Livestock Industry Cooperative office for the election campaign.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Each legal statement of witness K, L, M, N,O, and P;

1. Each police protocol on K, L, M, N,O, P, and Q;

1. Each report on internal investigation (each name tag attached, name tag attached, name tag attached, verification of the F.A. of the Office of Home Affairs in the F.M. and registration of preliminary candidates;

The date verification, CCTV images-faging is accompanied by a photograph, the dong line A of internal residence, and the placement of Gun office buildings)

1. Each name box, a list of preliminary candidates, and a list of constituencies for National Assembly members;

1. Styp photographs, office building placement drawings, field photographs1);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant’s act is an act before the constituency is demarcated, and the Defendant registered as a preliminary candidate in the D/R constituency at the time, and conducted an election campaign. Thus, FF forces did not run for the Defendant to run, and the Defendant’s act of visiting the F/Gun area other than the constituency does not constitute a door-to-door visit. However, punishing the Defendant for an ex post facto finalized election district is contrary to the principle of infinite punishment.

B. In door-to-door visits prohibited by Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the term "home or any other similar place of an individual" refers to "resident welfare and welfare of the FF military office that the defendant visited, and the elderly person's satisfaction and office is an integrated civil petition office for welfare services, and it does not constitute "public place that many people pass and go to" under Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

C. The FWD visited by the Defendant does not fall under the “No. 1,” but falls under the “stores” as an exception to the prohibition of door-to-door visits as provided by Article 106(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and also falls under the places where many people come to open to the public.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that the defendant's act does not constitute a door-to-door visit under the Public Official Election Act as an act conducted in an area other than the constituency before defining constituency

1) The term “election campaign” refers to an act that can objectively be objectively recognized by the intention of promoting an election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election. The issue of whether an election campaign constitutes an act is an act that is expressed outside the specific election rather than an internal intent of the subject of the act. Since it is an important concept sign that an act at issue is for a specific election, it constitutes an election campaign only if it is recognized that the act at issue is for a specific election. In such a situation as at the time of the act, it should be reasonably determined whether the act at issue was intended for a specific election by taking into account various objective circumstances such as prediction and confirmation of the implementation of the specific election, interval between the time of the act and the specific election, details of the act at the time of the act, and the relationship between the offender and the candidate. Meanwhile, in order to recognize that an act at issue is for a specific election, one must be determined reasonably on the premise that a certain person is obviously 160 days or more (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Do16281.).

2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, unless there is a different premise, such as limiting the act of violation in the constituent element itself to a violation in a specific election district, such act constitutes "election campaign" in the event there is an objective circumstance by which the elector can clearly recognize that the act of promoting the success in an election on the premise of a specific election. Therefore, inasmuch as how the election district was demarcated at the time of door-to-door visit, and how the defendant's act of visiting the place of door-to-door visit constitutes "an act aimed at the success in an election on the premise of a specific election," i.e., "an act aimed at determining whether the act of the defendant was an election campaign," it is a factor to determine whether the act of the defendant constitutes an election campaign on the premise of a specific election. Thus, even

3) The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence: ① the time when the defendant visits the F Military Administration and the FF livestock cooperative is close to the 20th election day of the National Assembly member; ② the defendant had already registered as a preliminary candidate for the 20th election and for the 20th election district; ③ the defendant was in the actual state of continuing an election campaign; ③ the defendant worn a shoulder belt indicating the political party at the time of the crime, and carried out an election campaign clearly in appearance; ② the defendant was in the process of defining the election district of the National Assembly member by the 20th election district of the National Assembly member; ② the defendant was in the election district of the 20th election district of the National Assembly member; ② the defendant was in the process of defining the election district of the National Assembly member by the 20th election district of the National Assembly member; and ② the defendant was in the process of distributing the election district of the National Assembly member and the 20th election district of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly, not the general name of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member and the 2nd Election Commission.

(b) Whether an act of visiting the FF military office or FFF consulting office constitutes a door-to-door visit prohibited under the Public Official Election Act;

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 106(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "no person may visit each house for election campaign or for the solicitation of a political party during the election period." Article 106(2) provides that "any person who is entitled to carry out an election campaign may appeal for support of a political party or candidate at a road, market, store, multiple-house, waiting room, or other open space where many people pass and pass, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)." In this Article, "house" subject to door-to door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, which is not open to the public for free access of the general public or belongs to a place for business, or a place where many people are allowed to visit during the election period." In light of the legislative intent purpose of this Article, the issue of whether an office door or office building exists, structure of the place, public nature and accessibility thereof, and the form of management and use of the office, etc., such as the above 201.

2) Determination as to the assertion on each office of the FFA.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence are: ① A comprehensive civil petition office, which is a department that receives and treats comprehensively civil petitions from the FF-Gun office, is established separately in a space such as urban planning, etc. ② A separate reception cost is established in the space where a general civil petition office is located; ② a civil petitioner is installed between the reception unit and the reception unit; the civil petitioner is inside the office; the outside is a book or a civil petition form containing various civil petition documents forms; the civil petitioners are installed separately; ③ there is a separate space between the residents’ welfare and the route and the family members; ③ there is no separate space between the office and employees belonging to the F-Gun office; ④ in the case of the residents’ welfare and the route, there is no access to the relevant space to the public; and ④ there is no general access to the relevant part of the office and the public; and thus, there is no general access to the public’s office and the public’s right to open the office. In light of the above, there is no reason to view that there is no separate space for the public.

3) Determination as to the assertion on the second floor office of the FFFFFFK

A) According to the legal principles as seen earlier, "No door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door to open door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, and in light of the fact that Article 106 (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides as an exception to door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door to open door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door to a large number of unspecified customers.

B) The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are: ① A business space on the first floor of the FF Livestock Cooperative is a space in charge of ordinary financial affairs against many and unspecified persons, such as deposits, loans, etc.; ② a passage and corridor is installed separately from the first floor; ② a separate entrance is installed on the second floor; ② a department located on the second floor is not a general affairs department, guidance, distribution department, claims management department directly contact with the unspecified number of outside persons; ③ its main business is being conducted in the said zone is document work; ③ a person’s direct operation is not expected to receive goods or financial goods from the visiting customers; ④ a general installation is not an open space but an open space. In light of the structure of the office, etc., it appears that the given space is basically an open space and an open space is not an open space, but an open space is not an open space. Therefore, it appears to be an open space or an open space is not an open space.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 6 million won; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 of Election Campaign in Violation of the Election Campaign Method (Method of Election Campaign)

(Violation)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field (a fine of not less than 700,000 won but not more than 2 million won)

3. Determination of sentence: Fine of 700,000 won; and

In light of the purport of the Public Official Election Act that strictly limits the methods of election campaigns to ensure that elections are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, the Defendant’s door-to-door visits prohibited by the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter “Public Official Election Act”) visited the FFA and FF consulting offices that are prohibited from free access by many unspecified civil petitioners.

However, the Defendant is a primary offender with no criminal record, and the crime of this case does not seem to have reached the conclusion of the election, and in light of the place of the crime and the attitude of the crime, it seems that there is no possibility that other illegal acts may be committed through door doors. In addition, considering all the sentencing factors specified in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence shall be determined as per the order.

Nowon-gu (Presiding Judge)

Maap Young-young

For static purposes

1) In the case of the entry of "the head of the facility where the citizen's welfare and the office diameter was recorded" at the bottom of ten (10) photographs of the 125th page of the investigation records, the name of "the senior family and the office diameter"

It seems that ‘the face value' is a clerical error.