beta
Cases
Do 2017 Do 10469 A. Violation of Public Official Election Act
B. Violation of the Political Funds Act
(c) Concealment of evidence;
Defendant
1. (a) A;
2. A. (c) B
3. (a) C.
Appellant
Defendant and Prosecutor (Defendant A)
Defense Counsel
Attorney DM (for Defendant A)
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 2017No238 decided June 27, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
February 8, 2018
Text
all appeals shall be dismissed.
The reasoning of the judgment of the original court is as follows: 11, 12 '31, 185, 385 'B' '31, 164, 385 'B'.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are determined.
1. As to the defendant's appeal
Defendant did not submit a statement of reason for appeal within the period of submission of the statement of reason for appeal, and Defendant did not state the reason for appeal in the petition of appeal.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor
For the same reasons as the decision of the court below, the decision of the court below is not guilty on the ground that the portion of the charge of this case's violation of the Public Official Election Act due to "the receipt of money or valuables related to the election campaign" and the portion of the promotional text message transmission expenses, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to "the expenditure in excess of the election expenses" and the violation of the Political Act due to "the expenditure in excess of the reported deposit account," and the violation of the Political Act due to "the expenditure in excess of 31,164,385 won," constituted a case where the crime is not proven. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the record, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable. The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the free evaluation of due to the violation of the logic and experience without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation as to the grounds of appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, but it is clear that there is any clerical error such as the judgment of the original court, and therefore, it is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, with the aim to correct it in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Rule.
Justices Park Jae-young
Justices Kim Shin-chul
Justices Park Sang-ok
Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik
Justices Park Jung-hwa