Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall interfere with an assembly, speech or traffic, or interfere with the freedom of election by deceptive means, trick or other unlawful means, in connection with an election.

Nevertheless, on April 7, 2020, the Defendant heard that G and H make an election campaign speech using a loudspeaker on the front way of “C” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. On April 19:23, 202, on the 21st National Assembly member election E political party candidate for the election of F candidate on the front day of F, who is a volunteer for election campaign for F candidate, and “h”, and “h” in this Chewing part.

(h) Mastoves;

"................" means the large sound "................. the election campaign workers I of the above candidate and election campaign volunteers for the election campaign, and the election campaign volunteer for about seven minutes of a speech was interfered with.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the freedom of election by interfering with the speech on election.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to I, J and H;

1. G statements;

1. Application of the 112 Reporting List, CCTV image CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes around the site;

1. Relevant provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 237 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act (Selection of Fines);

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances):

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is deemed to interfere with the freedom of election, which is the foundation of free democracy, and thus, the liability for such crime is minor. However, it is against the recognition of the defendant's criminal act, and there is no particular criminal record other than the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to special larceny in around 1971, and the fact that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by contingency is considered as favorable to the defendant. In addition, the records of this case are recorded, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, and circumstances leading to the crime.