2019Do997 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4)

Attorney Jeong Il-young (the national election for the defendant 1, 3, and 5)

Law Firm Soviet (For Defendant 2)

Attorney Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney after completion (for the defendant 2)

법무법인 더쌤 (피고인 4를 위하여)

Attorney Kim Il-hee, Justice Kim Chang-hee, Justice Kim Chang-hee, Justice Kim Chang-hwan, Justice Park Jong-hoon, and Lee Lee Jae-soo

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2019No51 Decided June 18, 2019

October 17, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A, B, C, and D on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act in 2017, on the ground that there was no proof of crime, and rendered a not guilty on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the act of contribution in July 29, 2017 among the charges against Defendant B, on the ground that the statute of limitations for prosecution was completed for the part of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the act of contribution in July 29, 2017. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine

The Prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but the guilty part is not indicated in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the charge (excluding the part of acquittal and acquittal). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the suspension of prescription for an election criminal, the specification of the facts charged, the co-principal, and the election relation, or by

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, C, D, and E

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant A, C, D, and E of the facts charged (excluding the part on acquittal of Defendants A, C, and D). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the facts charged and joint principal offense, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Kim Jong-hwan