logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2015.03.31 2014노290
공직선거법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty despite the fact that the statement of L in the summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent and concrete, and there is no reason such as reporting false facts to the defendant, and 300,000 won paid to L does not reasonably change the defendant's appeal, which is X-ray price, is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that it is difficult to acknowledge that L’s statements were reliable due to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, and that other evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was insufficient to recognize the facts charged against the Defendant, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

① The Defendant took advantage of the N Party 1’s competition line and her candidate for the 6th local election council member under its control, and carried out an election campaign with the N Party X, a candidate for GGun who belongs to the N Party, while L supported Y, the other party of the Defendant at the time of the above competition. In GGun election, the Defendant and L were different political positions in support of X-partylessless Z, and L appears to have been actually involved in the election campaign, such as North Korea from the Z candidate’s election site.

② The Defendant and L, as seen above, are practically opposed to each other in terms of their political position. As such, the Defendant had a considerable risk to purchase L at the time, and the Defendant was also prior to the 29.7% gap in the results of the public opinion poll, and thus, the motive for the Defendant to have the money related to the election at the risk of risk burden is not understood or the proof is insufficient.

③ At the time of the initial police statement, L stated that “the date on which the Defendant received money from the Defendant was stated” and even thereafter, L stated that “the said date was May 28, 2014.”

arrow