(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.10.선고 2016노596 판결

The defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unfied, and the prosecutor is too unfied and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Major factors to determine the sentencing of the Defendant and the issues of the instant case

Article 70 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Commissioned Elections of Public Organizations, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Commissioned Elections") provides that the elected person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor or by a fine of not less than one million won for a violation of the Act on Commissioned Elections and the election shall be invalidated. Therefore, in sentencing, a sentence of a fine of not less than one million won means that a defendant's crime is serious enough to invalidate the election.

The defendant denies the facts charged from the investigative agency to the trial of the party (the defendant is deemed to have led the confession of the facts charged on the fourth trial of the court below, but as stated in the facts charged in the facts charged in this case, he still did not recognize that "the defendant had ordered D to issue and distribute the exchange right of this case in the name of the president of the association," and argued that the defendant was caused by mistake in the process of approval, and although the inducement of appeal only stated an unreasonable sentencing, the defendant's acquittal was actively asserted on the date of the trial of the party, although the inducement of appeal was stated only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, regardless of what is what is the substance of the case, whether the defendant should be acquitted ex officio or not to sentence the invalidation of election,

In other words, if the defendant had been unaware of the fact that the exchange right of this case was printed in the name of the president of the association until the distribution of the right of this case as argued by the defendant, the defendant is not guilty, regardless of his intention and political responsibility, and there is no intention to commit the crime of this case. However, even if the defendant had been specifically reported by F as to the possibility of violating the entrusted election law, he shall not be issued in the name of the president of the association, and even if he was reported by F, he shall separately be issued the exchange right of this case in the name of the president of the association, and he shall be ordered to issue the exchange right of this case in the name of the president of the association, such as before the case, and if he continued to deny the crime, and if he had the witness and witness make a statement favorable to him in the investigation agency and the court by taking advantage of his own position as the president of the association, he shall be deemed to have a serious fault in performing his duties in the location of the head of the association representing more than 3,000 members.

B. With respect to the facts charged, F’s credibility of the F Full-time Statement is to suggest to delete the part of “the president of the partnership in this case’s exchange right” from the Defendant’s exchange right, and even if the Defendant agreed on the position, the core of this case is the credibility of F’s statement as above. However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, F’s statement is deemed to be credibility.

① Although F made a statement to the effect similar to the Defendant’s assertion at the initial stage of an investigation, the Defendant made an internal accusation after the prosecution’s investigation commenced, and the Defendant actively instructed D to commit the instant crime. Defendant on the part of the Defendant asserted that F was making a false statement upon H’s withdrawal from an election as of March 11, 2015, or h’s withdrawal from the election, which took place on March 11, 2015. However, it is difficult to view that F made a false statement against the Defendant, who is the head of the incumbent association, by taking a considerable disadvantage in the workplace on the ground as seen above, in the event that the guidance to be prosecuted for the instant case and the guidance to be subject to the invalidation

On January 9, 2015, D, J, and the Defendant, who are opposed to F, stated that the instant exchange right was printed in the form including “the head of the printing office,” although D’s statement and request so was made in the form of “the head of the printing office,” but D’s statement and other measures were taken in the process of preparing for the distribution of the instant exchange right, it is difficult to believe that D’s statement was attached to F’s 7:00,000,000,000,000, and that D’s statement was attached to F’s 2.6:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

④ The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant ordered D to issue the instant exchange right in the name of the president of the partnership is not directly the F, but is transferred from D, and thus, it is inadmissible as a full statement as stipulated in Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the Defendant consented to the evidence on the investigation documents that contain the same contents on the fourth trial date of the lower court, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

⑤ At the time of issuing the instant exchange certificate, the Defendant asserted that there was no reason to block the instant crime, but there was a difference between the above phrase and the lower-age union members. From the standpoint of the Defendant, who is going to run an election, there was a person who registers the instant crime (on a practical basis, H was registered as a candidate). As such, there was incentive to block the instant crime.

C. Sub-committee

The Defendant does not repent while denying the facts charged, and does not actively instruct the employees to commit the act of violating the Commissioned Election Act, and the nature of the crime is considerably bad, and the circumstances following the crime are not good by encouraging or impliedly inducing employees to make false statements. Moreover, the Defendant cannot be convicted that the instant crime did not affect the Defendant’s election.

On the other hand, the exchange right of this case has been issued in the name of the head of the association, and it seems that there have been no many persons to think that the head of the association would be an individual even if it was stated as the "head of the cooperative" in the beginning of the year. Moreover, the defendant has no record of like crime. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, occupation and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below is judged to be appropriate to sentence the defendant to invalidate the election, and it is not deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable to

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.