beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the defendant (the guilty part in the judgment of the court below), the crime listed in the No. 1 through No. 4 of the crimes listed in the annexed Table 1 in the judgment of the court below is adjacent to the election executed on March 4, 2010, and the defendant continuously experienced his intention not to leave the election for the year 2015 until November 2014, since this part of the facts charged is related to the election executed on March 4, 2010, and since the indictment was instituted after the lapse of six months from the election day, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B) Although H and J did not officially receive rice from FF agricultural cooperatives (hereinafter “FF agricultural cooperatives”), and did not clearly prove that there is no reasonable doubt for the Defendant to have been individually supplied with rice, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and in the misapprehension of legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
C) Although the Defendant provided rice to N, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although it did not constitute a contribution act in accordance with the statutes stipulated in Article 33(1)1 Item (b) of the Act on Entrusted Elections including Agricultural Cooperatives and the articles of association and the business plan and budget of a cooperative under Article 33(1)1 Item (b) of the Act on Entrusted Elections including Public Organizations, in substance, that the Defendant provided rice to some outstanding members who did not officially donate, on behalf of the Defendant, for the purpose of public relations. It erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The lower court’s sentence (2 million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
(b).