logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.06.21 2013노1277
공직선거법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not assault the election campaign workers on the day of the instant case, and the Defendant’s act cannot be viewed as an assault.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor changed the part of the previous facts charged in this case to E (E, 43 years old), F (n, 56 years old), “E (E, 43 years old),” and “election clerks,” respectively, and applied for amendments to a bill of amendment with the meaning that the applicable provisions of the Act are “Article 237(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act and Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act” as “Article 237(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act.” Since this Court permitted this, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, the judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, this paper will be examined below.

3. The crime of assault in judgment of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refers to the exercise of physical tangible force against a human body, and thus it does not necessarily require any contact with a victim, and thus, in the event that the act of placing a hand or an article or placing an article, as the victim may take a bath near the victim, was committed, and even if the victim did not have any direct contact with the victim, it constitutes an assault as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4126, Jul. 24, 2008). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was in the ground of sound and garrising, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case at the time of this case, and was in the body of E with his/her hand.

arrow