beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below’s sentence (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to Article 141(1) of the Public Official Election Act, a political party (including a party members’ council) shall not hold a party members’ rally within the constituency in which an election is being held, or for the party members who are electors, within the constituency in which an election is held, regardless of the pretext, such as short-term training, training, education,
Nevertheless, the defendant held a party members' rally in the form of a council meeting at which 50 party members belonging to the party members' council are present in the form of a council at which Do party members' council is held as the chairperson of the Do party members' council. In light of the motive, specific circumstances, etc. of the crime, the defendant is highly
(1) The Defendant asserted that his act was in conflict with the law because he was unaware of the circumstances that the Public Official Election Act was amended by Act No. 9974 on January 25, 2010, and the amendment was made to include the “Council” in the “political party” under Articles 141 and 256(3) of the same Act, and that his act was not known to the effect that it would be in conflict with the law. However, this cannot be deemed a justifiable cause that may interfere with the establishment of the crime, as it constitutes a mere legal site. As such, the Defendant’s act of this case constitutes a fair election according to the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and that the purpose of the Public Official Election Act enacted for the purpose of contributing to the development of democratic politics by preventing any malpractice related to the election was damaged, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, even if considering some favorable circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is unreasonable.
B. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.