A. Whether the provisions of Article 70 of the former Local Council Members Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4311 of Dec. 31, 1990) on the trial limit of prohibition of contribution under Article 70 may apply mutatis mutandis to advance election campaigns (negative)

B. In a case where a penal provision on prior election campaign in violation of Article 32 of the same Act was amended, whether punishment is a case where punishment is repealed due to the amendment or repeal of statutes (negative)

A. Article 70 of the former Local Council Members Act (amended by Act No. 4311 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that a contribution act is prohibited separately from whether it constitutes an advance election during the period prescribed in the above Article. If a contribution act is conducted outside the above period, it cannot be interpreted as a provision allowing it even if it falls under an advance election. In addition, Article 32 of the same Act provides that an election campaign may be carried out only from the day following the deadline for candidate registration to the day preceding the election day, and Article 167 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that a person who conducts an election campaign in violation of the above Article 32 of the same Act shall be punished, and therefore, Article 70 of the same Act provides that the restriction on the time limit for the prohibition of contribution as provided in the above Article 70 shall not be applied by applying mutatis mutandis to the advance election.

B. For the violation of Article 32 of the same Act, the amended Local Council Members Act provides for penal provisions in Article 39 and Article 180(1)1 of the same Act, and such penal provisions are greater than that of the former Act, and thus, it does not constitute a case where punishment should be imposed in accordance with the former Act at the time of the act, and the punishment is repealed due to the repeal or repeal

A. (b) Articles 32 and 167(1)1(a) of the former Act on the Promotion of Local Council Members (amended by Act No. 4311 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 70(b) of the same Act; Articles 39 and 180(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Local Council Members; Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Shin-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 91No411 delivered on January 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the court below based on the records, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant, who judged that he will run as a candidate for the Gyeongbuk-do local council member before the candidate registration was made to be elected as the above local council member, and recognized the defendant as having committed an act such as distribution of money and goods as one trial time prior to the candidate registration, and recognized the defendant as having been punished by the crime of advance election campaign under Articles 167 (1) 1 and 32 of the former Local Council Members Act (Act No. 4005 of April 6, 198).

Article 70 of the same Act provides that a contribution act shall be prohibited separately from whether it constitutes an advance election campaign during the prescribed period under the above Act, and if a contribution act is performed outside the above period, it shall not be interpreted as a provision allowing it even if it falls under an advance election. In addition, Article 32 of the same Act provides that an election campaign may be carried out only from the day following the deadline for candidate registration to the day preceding the election day, and Article 167 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that a person who conducts an election campaign in violation of the above Article 32 shall be punished, and Article 167 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that a provision on the time limit for the prohibition of contribution under the above Article 70 shall not be applied to the advance election. Thus, since the act such as distribution of money and valuables at the time of the defendant's original judgment was carried out outside the prescribed period under the above Article 70, a lawsuit that cannot be taken as a crime of advance election is an independent opinion.

In addition, Article 32 of the former Local Council Members Act (Act No. 4311, Dec. 31, 1990) amended with respect to the violation of Article 32 of the former Local Council Members Act provides a penal provision under Article 39 and Article 180 (1) 1 of the former Act, and its punishment is greater than that of the former Act, and it does not constitute a case where punishment should be imposed in accordance with the former Act at the time of the act, such as the assertion of arguments, is repealed. In the same regard, the measures taken by the court below by applying the former Local Council Members Act, which was enforced at the time of the act with respect to the distribution of money and valuables, as stated in the judgment of the defendant, are just,

In addition, since the distribution of money and valuables such as the defendant's original adjudication does not violate the social norms, it cannot be said that there is an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

After all, there is no reason for the judgment of the court below that there is a violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles.

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)