Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall interfere with a speech about an election.

Nevertheless, around 15:00 on April 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around D pharmacy in Yangsan-si, the 19th presidential election E-party election campaign speechmaker, made a campaign speech claiming support for the E Party G candidates on a pro rata vehicle; and (b) in order to make the said campaign speechmaker’s speech, the Defendant interfered with a campaign speech, such as forcing a person to cut the microphones listed on the said pro rata vehicle to cut off the microphones from the said campaign speechmakers and suspending the campaign speech by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against the F;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Application of CCTV photographs for crime prevention;

1. Relevant Article 237 (1) 2 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials in Charge of Criminal Facts and Article 237 (1) 2 of the Act on the Selection of Public Officials in Charge of Punishment;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act attracting the Nowon-gu Station is an act that interferes with the freedom of election campaign directly by forcing a campaign leader to cut his microphones who make a speech on a vehicle with his own listed on the election campaign, and thus, the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant in light of the purport of the election law of the public office to guarantee the freedom of election, which is the basic condition for securing the fairness of election, the background of the crime and the attitude of the act, etc.

On the other hand, the defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime in the tactical, and there is no particular criminal record that the defendant interfered with the election campaign of a specific candidate or did not seem to have been a special political purpose, the time obstructing a speech is relatively short, the degree of interference is not limited, and the damaged election campaign team does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant does not have any particular criminal record.