Whether the proviso of Article 265 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act provides for the grounds for rejection of the establishment of crimes committed by the election campaign manager, etc. who has committed a purchase and Inducement by interest under Article 230 of the

The provisions of the proviso of Article 265 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice (excluding a case where the crime is committed with the intention of making the election of a candidate invalidated by inducement or inducement of another person) " shall not apply to the case where the election campaign manager, etc. committed the crime, such as Article 230 of the same Act, in the election concerned, and thereby is sentenced to imprisonment, the election of the candidate concerned shall become invalidated." It is only limited to the provision of an exception to the main sentence of Article 265 of the same Act, and it is not a separate provision for the reason that the election campaign manager, etc., who committed the crime provided for in Article 230 of the same Act, commits the crime

Articles 230 and 265 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park So-young

Gwangju High Court Decision 98No777 delivered on January 27, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant delivered 150,000 won in total to the non-indicted 1, the elector, and 100,000 won to the non-indicted 1, the elector, for the purpose of having the non-indicted 1 elected in the election of the local council members of the Dong-si, Jindo-gun, Do-gun, which was implemented by the defendant on June 4, 1998, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to criminal intent or by

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to invoke the instant case due to different cases.

The above grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

On the second ground for appeal

The provisions of the proviso of Article 265 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice (excluding a case where the crime is committed with the intention of making the election of a candidate invalidated by inducement or inducement of another person) " shall not apply to the case where the election campaign manager, etc. committed a crime under Article 230 of the same Act, which is committed in the election concerned, and thereby is sentenced to imprisonment, the election of the candidate concerned shall become invalidated." It is only limited to the provision of an exception to the main sentence of Article 265 of the same Act, and it does not provide a separate reason for preventing the establishment of such crime against the election campaign manager, etc. who has committed the crime under Article 230 of the same Act

From a different point of view, the argument that the crime of Article 230 of the same Act is not established because the defendant caused another person to commit the crime of this case under the proviso to Article 265 of the same Act is not acceptable as an independent opinion. In addition, in light of the records, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant caused the crime of this case due to a cause falling under the proviso to Article 265 of the same Act. Accordingly, this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

On the third ground for appeal

Although the court below's assertion that the court below violated the rules of sentencing because it did not properly consider the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the above assertion is nothing more than the allegation of unfair sentencing and thus, in this case where imprisonment less than 10 years is imposed, the court below's excessive sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)