2016Do9071 Violation of Act on Entrusted Elections by Public Organizations, etc.

1. C.

2. D.

Defendants

Law Firm (Limited) AO (Defendant D)

Attorney AP

AU Law Firm (For Defendant D)

Attorney AV, AW, AX, Y, AZ, BA

Law Firm BB (for Defendant D)

Attorney BC, BD, and BE

Jeju District Court Decision 2015No622 Decided May 26, 2016

May 31, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

Examining in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the accomplice and status, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, Article 24 of the former Act on Entrusted Elections by Public Organizations, Etc. (amended by Act No. 13619, Dec. 24, 2015) that restrict a candidate’s election campaign cannot be deemed as a unconstitutional provision that excessively limits the freedom of expression on election campaign under the Constitution. Thus, the argument that the above provision is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where Defendant D was sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Chief Justice Kim Shin -

Justices Kim Gin-young