logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.01.24 2016고합449
공직선거법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The Defendant was the chairperson of a youth organization “E” and the F was planned to leave the 20th National Assembly member election at April 13, 2016, as the 19th National Assembly member, to go to the G constituency as a candidate for H political party.

The defendant argued that F was involved in F's employment visa of I.

Except as prescribed by the Public Official Election Act, no one shall conduct an election campaign by means of propaganda facilities, tools, assemblies, etc. prior to the election campaign period, and no one shall install, display, post or distribute placards, advertisements, or advertising facilities in order to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day.

At around 12:00, the Defendant used the phrase “M”, “N”, and “O” in front of L’s sentiments, and the name and photograph of “F” and conducted one person demonstration.

As a result, the Defendant carried out an election campaign using propaganda facilities and tools prior to the election campaign period, and up to 180 days prior to the election day to the election day.

2. In relation to the progress of trial with respect to citizen participation, the defendant did not submit a copy of the indictment in writing within seven days from the date on which he was served with a copy of the indictment, and does not want to proceed this case to citizen participation trial on the first trial date.

was stated.

However, at the second trial date, the Defendant sought to proceed the instant case to a citizen’s participation trial, and this court proceeded with the instant case as a citizen’s participation trial according to the Defendant’s intent.

Article 8(4) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials provides that the Defendant may not alter the previous intention after the date of the first trial has been open. Thus, if such provision is applied in this case formally, it may be deemed that the instant case may not proceed to the citizen participation trial.

However, a trial for citizen participation.

arrow