beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B1 delivered KRW 5 million to A, there was no fact of issuing a list of members of the S community at the time, and furthermore, there was no fact of offering money and valuables or entertainment to A and its members or ordering A to do such act.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant F (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (1.5 million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant B, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, the defense counsel, that the Defendant did not deliver the list of the instant association members to A around December 2014. However, although A received a list of the instant association members from the Defendant at the investigative agency, he/she received a list of the instant association members from the Defendant at the investigative agency as well as KRW 5 million.
The consistently stated the following facts: (a) the instant list of union members is not an official electoral list, but the Defendant’s personal list is deemed to be a list of union members prepared by himself; (b) the Defendant appears to be able to deliver it even around February 2, 2014, prior to the application period for issuance of a copy of the official electoral list; (c) the Defendant has already prepared and used a non-official list in the form similar to the instant list in the election of union head in 2010; (d) the instant list of union members is indicated as “(S)”; and (e) the phrase specifying the name, such as “S,” is also written on the list of union members used by the Defendant in the election of the head of the association in 2010; and (b) in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have similar letters on “S” as written on the list of union members used by the Defendant in 2010 and on the list of union members in this case.