logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.08.22 2014고합136
공직선거법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was a preliminary candidate for the 6th national local elections D party E market.

No one shall use a loudspeaker system for election campaign except where he/she uses it for a speech, interview or debate at the place of campaign speech, interview or debate at an open place under the Public Official Election Act, and since a preliminary candidate is unable to make a campaign speech or interview at an open place under the Public Official Election Act, he/she shall use a loudspeaker system for election campaign.

Nevertheless, at around 19:30 on March 27, 2014, the Defendant introduced himself/herself over five minutes from the 20 G cafeterias located in F to 20 members of the H Federation, and made a statement about his/her support. The Defendant used microphones, a loudspeaker system.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Indicating some of the statements of the prosecution and the police suspect examination protocol against the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement to I;

1. Written statements prepared by the J;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel regarding on-site photographs, outside photographs inside and outside the restaurant, and the second restaurant, which are the place where the Defendant used a loudspeaker system, are all lent for the gathering of the HM association at that time, and thus the use of ordinary customers, other than those related to the said association, is prohibited. However, the Defendant, a preliminary candidate, is unable to conduct an election campaign using a loudspeaker system regardless of the place of disclosure, and according to the evidence as seen earlier, the above restaurant was a place where many unspecified people are scheduled to enter and depart for the use of the restaurant, and a part of the restaurant was lent for meetings.

Even if the access of general customers or employees is not deemed to have been specially controlled or prohibited, the above assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;

arrow