logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.14 2015고단1887
공공단체등위탁선거에관한법률위반
Text

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is to be disclosed to the Defendants.

Reasons

Defendant A, on February 19, 2014, engaged in the livestock industry as a person who had been sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won by violating the Agricultural Cooperatives Act at the Suwon District Court on the charges of violating the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. From around 2009 to January 29, 2015, Defendant A had a record of engaging in the livestock industry as a director of the Korea Livestock Industry Cooperatives (hereinafter “K”); Defendant B had a record of engaging in the livestock industry and serving as a representative of the K K. The Defendants are members of the “L organization”, which is a meeting of some members with a critical tendency.

Defendant

A was prepared for the withdrawal of the K K union head on March 11, 2015, but it is thought that there is no possibility for a candidate to be elected without the simplification of the candidate. From October 2014 to October 2014, A has been discussed for the simplification of M and candidates who are preparing for the withdrawal of the union head.

Defendant

A and M asked Defendant B, who has worked as K representative, to be able to negotiate candidate simplification in the middle. Defendant B discussed and concluded the plan for candidate simplification, including Defendant A and M, several times from October 2014 to October 2014.

On the other hand, on February 19, 2014, Defendant A appealed a fine of 1.5 million won by violating the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. However, on July 24, 2014, the appeal was dismissed by the same court and the appeal was waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court, and the election of the head of the cooperative was not possible if the fine of 1.5 million won is finalized, and the discussion on the plan for the simplification of candidates who did not get a conclusion was focused on how to compensate for the election of M without the withdrawal of Defendant A, and on January 29, 2015, Defendant A was unable to leave the cooperative.

arrow