Defendant

Defendant

Lee Young-young (Court of Appeals) (Court of Second Instance) (Court of Second Instance),

Law Firm Jungwon, Attorneys Kim Su-chul et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 2015Ra824 Decided November 19, 2015

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant, without receiving any notification from the fishing village fraternity most well aware of the eligibility as a member, was passively responding to the organization of the electoral registry in the absence of a board of directors for determining an unqualified member, and did not intentionally enter false facts in the electoral registry. In addition, the issue should be determined by the resolution of the board of directors. However, insofar as the board of directors did not pass a resolution on the loss of the eligibility of 76 persons listed in the attached list of crimes committed by the lower judgment, the status as a member of the fishing village fraternity is maintained, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment (two million won of fine) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The defendant and defense counsel asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal in the original judgment, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail as the argument and the defense counsel in the summary of the evidence of the original judgment.

6. The lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s act of entering the above facts in the list of members of the cooperative constitutes an act of entering the following circumstances and legal regulations, namely, ① the district fisheries cooperative’s act of entering its membership in the list of members of the cooperative, with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the above facts in the list of members of the cooperative or the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the above facts in the list of members of the cooperative for a certain period of time, i.e., the number of members of the cooperative without the consent of the board of directors; ② the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the list of members of the cooperative or the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter into the list of members of the cooperative for a certain time without the consent of the board of directors; ② the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the list of members of the cooperative or the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the list of members of the cooperative for an objective purpose of checking the eligibility of members of the cooperative, i.e., the head of the cooperative, as the head of the cooperative.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, that there is no evidence of criminal punishment of the defendant, that the defendant's branch referred to the public services of the union of this case, and that the defendant wanted to be the front of the defendant, etc., but the defendant denies the crime of this case until the court below held that the crime of this case was included in the electoral register by 76 persons who are not qualified as union members since the defendant, who is obligated to organize the electoral register, did not completely investigate the actual condition of union members. In light of the number of union members (52) at the time of the election of union head of this case at the time of the election of this case, the number of union members (52), the number of the defendant and the defendant's obtained votes (4) with the defendant, the possibility that the crime of this case could not be ruled out that the election of the head of the association of this case was decided due to the difference between the candidate and the non-indicted, and that the election of the head of the association of this case is clean and fair, thereby contributing to the development of sound election environment or circumstances, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges equal to or higher than judges (Presiding Judge) Gong Kim-ho