2018Gohap760 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A

Written evidence (prosecution) and a trial in the highest rank;

Attorney Noh Jeong-hee (National Ship)

November 15, 2018

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

Of the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Public Official Election Act on May 4, 2018 is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

Criminal facts

Except for those prescribed by the Public Official Election Act in order to have an influence on the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day, no one shall install, display, display or distribute wreaths, wind lines, signboards, placards, advertising balloons, instruments or advertising towers, other advertising materials or facilities, and the name of a political party or candidate, the name of a political party or candidate, his/her name, or any content by which such name may be inferred, shall be deemed to have an influence on the election.

On May 3, 2018, the Defendant posted a banner on May 3, 2018 in front of the Seoul Building, and on June 13, 2018, the 7th nationwide election, which was held on June 13, 2018, stating that the Defendant was in front of the election campaign office of the candidate for the E-political Party F, which was held by the head of the Gu of Dong-si Local Election, with a preliminary candidate, one banner stating “DD’s seated return of rents” and one banner stating “DD’s seated return of rents.”

Accordingly, the defendant set up and posted a banner which is not under the Public Official Election Act to influence the election.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes No. 2 of photographic (Evidence No. 2);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 256 (3) 1 (h) and Article 90 (1) 1 (Selection of Fines) of the Public Official Election Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under the law: a fine of not less than 50,000 won but not more than four million won;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the application of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not set;

3. Determination of sentence: The instant crime of KRW 1 million is an act that impairs the fairness of election, which is based on democracy, and undermines the efficiency of election management. The Defendant also committed an act in violation of the Public Official Election Act in order to accomplish his/her request even after having received a final and conclusive judgment against the claim for refund of rent, and thus, there is a lot of possibility of criticism. The Defendant has a number of criminal records subject to fines, and was punished for election crimes. Such circumstances are unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, although the name of a political party is written on the banner posted by the defendant, the crime of this case did not have a significant risk of affecting the result of the election, since the banner is not on the party itself or the candidate for the relevant election, but is collected as it is not only one day after being posted.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Except for those prescribed by the Public Official Election Act in order to have an influence on the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day, no one shall install, display, display or distribute wreaths, wind lines, signboards, placards, advertising balloons, instruments or advertising towers, other advertising materials or facilities, and the name of a political party or candidate, the name of a political party or candidate, his/her name, or any content by which such name may be inferred, shall be deemed to have an influence on the election.

On May 4, 2018, the Defendant posted one banner at the same place as criminal facts No. 1, 2018. In order to influence the election, the Defendant installed and posted a banner, which is not under the Public Official Election Act, with the aim of influencing the election.

2. Determination

Considering that the content of the banner posted on May 4, 2018 is identical to that of the Defendant’s banner posted at the same place on May 3, 2018, the Defendant is suspected to have not posted the banner on May 4, 2018, in view of the same fact as “a decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making by the chairperson of the E.E. Party D Regional Chairperson”.

However, there is no direct evidence supporting this part of the facts charged that the Defendant posted the above banner, and in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant posted the banner as stated in the facts charged on May 4, 2018 to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

① The Defendant consistently admitted that the banner on the yellow background posted on May 3, 2018 from the investigative agency was posted by himself/herself, and denies that the banner on the yellow background posted on May 4, 2018 was not posted by himself/herself.

② The place where the above banner was posted is accessible to anyone on the side. However, even though the Defendant denied the commission of the crime on banner as of May 4, 2018 from the beginning, there was CCTV that moved and taken the above place near the place, and the investigation agency confirmed the CCTV as of May 3, 2018 when it confirmed that the banner was collected by a arbitra-gun around 03:24 to 03:26 on May 4, 2018 (in the form of CCTV, 68 pages), and on the record, the circumstances that were confirmed by CCTV as of May 4, 2018 cannot be found.

③ The content of a banner posted on May 4, 2018 is identical to that of a banner posted by the Defendant on May 3, 2018. However, rather than that of the lease, it is difficult to readily conclude that the content itself is a somewhat comprehensive content that can only be written by the Defendant (in the case of two banner posted on May 8, 2018 (in the 46-48 pages of investigation records), the Defendant’s banner posted on May 3, 2018 and its content, color, are identical, but the Defendant was not prosecuted on the ground that he denies the crime.

4) The Defendant, on May 3, 2018, posted two banners posted on May 3, 2018, posted and posted them to the Assistant to print them in the printing office, and the Defendant reported the contact details to an investigative agency. However, the contact details are not telephone contact but the account holder of contact details is “J”. However, the Defendant asserts that the J is the mother of I, and the Defendant’s assertion is false, and there is no evidence that the Defendant’s assertion is false. It cannot be said that the facts charged are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to whether the Defendant’s assertion is true or doubtful.

3. Conclusion

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly announced pursuant to

The presiding judge, the highest judge;

Judges Gin-type money

Judges Shin Jae-ho