2017No186 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. A or a member of the National Assembly;

2. B

3. Members of the C or the North Korean Council of Ulsan Metropolitan City.

9. I

10. J

11. K;

Prosecutor and Defendants

Audios (prosecutions), fresh, stale, gambling, gale, gye (each public trial)

1. For Defendant A, B, and C:

Law Firm Governing Law

Attorney Lee In-bok

2. For Defendant D, E,F,G, and H:

Law Firm Dasan

Attorney Lee In-bok

3. Defendant I, J, and K:

Law Firm Grandnan

Attorney Lee In-bok

Ulsan District Court Decision 2016Gohap321 Decided March 24, 2017

July 26, 2017

[Defendant A]

Of the judgment of the court below, the conviction of Defendant A and the acquittal part on the use of a similar institution

The part on the violation of the direct election law shall be reversed.

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be the defendant for the period converted 100,000 won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of similar agencies among the part not guilty against Defendant A of the lower judgment

The prosecutor's appeal on the remainder other than the above shall be dismissed.

[Defendant B]

The part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be the defendant for the period converted 100,000 won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

[Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K]

Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the above Defendants

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

1. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles

(a) A prosecutor;

1) Use of similar agency (the part against Defendant A and B)

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendants can sufficiently recognize the fact that the two district election campaigners, including the defendant D and E, use the office "(1)" and " Women's Council(2)" as a similar institution, in collusion with the two district election campaign workers by knowing that they use the office as a similar institution, and in collusion with the two district election campaign workers, they use the office of accompanying and female association for the defendant A as facilities similar to the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office for the purpose of carrying out election campaign

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of "the purpose of election campaign" under the Public Official Election Act and "the public-private partnership crime" under the Criminal Act.

2) The point of a telephone prior election campaign

가) 피고인 C, D, E, F에 대한 부분[원심 이유 무죄 부분: W, **, $$(원심 판시 범

62, 79, 155, 160, 230, 277, hereinafter referred to as "six persons, such as W, etc.") set forth in Table 2 of the Crime List

(1) A telephone election campaign for 280 remaining 280 persons other than the B/L

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, not only six defendants, W, etc., but also the remaining 280 persons as stated in Table 2 of the crime committed in the decision of the court below can be sufficiently recognized. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendants of this part of the facts charged was erroneous.

B) The part against Defendant A

Defendant C, D, E, and F’s telephone election campaign was very important for the Defendant’s advance election campaign at the center of the Defendant’s fleet. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant, even though being aware of the fact that the advance election was being carried out by the said Defendants, could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant had engaged in the advance election campaign in collusion with Defendant C, D, E, and F. The lower court acquitted Defendant on this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment of “public-private partnership crime” under the Criminal Act.

3) Purchase and lead to understanding (the part against Defendant A)

Defendant I and J, even though they knew that they provided a democratic field office to the election campaign workers in Busan, including Defendant K, without compensation, can sufficiently be recognized that Defendant I and J provided money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign to the election campaign campaign workers in Busan, in collusion with Defendant I and J. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a "public joint principal offender" under the Criminal Act and the establishment of a "public joint principal offender".

B. Defendant A and C

1) Defendant A (a point of a preliminary election campaign, such as a first-class demonstration)

In the following respect, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

1. ① On March 7, 2016, each call out on March 7, 2016, and the distance publicity before March 27, 2016, all of which are separate acts, and each of the electors abutting on the fact that each act constitutes an election campaign is determined individually, and thus, the original judgment is erroneous in determining that each act constitutes an election campaign.

② Examining the above acts individually, most of them are merely ordinary expressive acts that could not be perceived as election campaign from the elector’s perspective, and do not constitute election campaign.

③ 피고인은 피고인 C, J 및 2%, ## 등과 1인시위, 출근선전전, 거리선전전 등의 사전선거운동을 공모하거나 이를 총괄하지 않았다.

④ The Defendant did not have any awareness that the instant one-person demonstration, etc. was illegal in a prior election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act.

2) Defendant C.

A) The point of a telephone prior election campaign

In the following respect, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

(1) Defendant E, F, etc. has no appeal for support by Defendant A to six persons, including W, etc.

② Since W and B were not a member of the National Police Agency, there was no voting right in mobile voting, which was enforced for the 'the simplification of candidates' as a non-member of the National Police Agency at the time, even if they appealed for support from Defendant A, they could not have an effect on the result of the election. Therefore, there was no punishment, not for a prior election campaign.

(3) X is not illegal as it is an act contrary to the social norms, with a private telephone, with a view to Y and 10 years ago.

④ Defendant E, F, etc. did not direct or take general charge of such telephone-related advance election campaign, nor did he/she conspired with them.

B) The point of prior election campaign for the ice on the first stage of demonstration

In the following respect, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

(1) A single-person demonstration, such as facts charged, is merely an ordinary expressive act that cannot be recognized as an election campaign from the elector’s perspective, and does not constitute an election campaign.

(2) Since the nature of a one-person demonstration is an act solely based on its nature, among the first-person demonstration as indicated in the list of crimes as indicated in the holding of the court below, a public contest relationship cannot be established as to the remaining acts of the first-person demonstration other than the four-person demonstration directly executed by the defendant, and therefore the defendant cannot be punished as the co-principal of another person's demonstration.

③ In order to determine one person’s demonstration as an election campaign, the content indicated in the pocketet cited by the one person’s demonstration should be specified, but this part of the facts charged is not specified.

④ The Defendant did not have awareness of the illegality of the instant one-person demonstration, etc. during a prior election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act.

(c) Defendant D, E, F, G, and H

1) Use of similar agency (Defendant D, E, F, G, H)

In this part of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts because it did not consider the unique nature of the case at issue, it did not comply with the principle of no punishment without the law that should reasonably limit the risk of broad interpretation of ‘use', and it did not properly consider specific places of acts specified as similar official use.

2) Telephone advance election campaign (Defendant D, E, F)

A) From March 8, 2016 to March 11, 2016, the period for the simplification of the non-obviousness candidate between Defendant A and Z preliminary candidates, the Defendants called to the persons listed in the list of crimes listed in the attached Table 2 as indicated in the lower judgment, and urged them to participate in voting, and there is no fact that Defendant A complained of support. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged on this part on the grounds of six statements, including W without credibility.

B) Even if Defendant E, etc. complained of Defendant A’s support by calls to modern vehicle employees during the period of simplification of inventive step candidates, this is an act that is allowed under the Public Official Election Act as in the same manner as “act for election in the intraparty competition”, since Defendant A was entitled to a single candidate. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, in so determining, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “pre-election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act.”

3) The preliminary election campaign for the ice on one demonstration (Defendant D, F)

One person demonstration is not limited to a specific period of time, but is ordinarily engaged in activities that had been conducted from the past to the present situation at a civil organization level, such as the Ulsan National Assembly, and was independently carried out regardless of Defendant A’s election. The phrases written in the diskettes do not relate to a specific candidate or political party, but rather to a specific candidate or political party, or to raise an objection to the general government policy, and it does not constitute an election campaign, as they did not appeal for support to Defendant A or select the counter candidate, and thus do not constitute an election campaign.

D. Defendant I, J, K

1) The point of prior election campaign on March 7, 2016 (Defendant J) prior election campaign on March 7, 2016

The right to work publicity prior to the public relations relations is carried out by the defendant in the status of the chairman of the political committee of the " Democratic Site", which is a field organization of modern automobiles, and it belongs to the daily group activities at the democratic site, and was carried out independently from the election of the defendant A. The phrases written on banner do not include the election of the specific candidate or the election of the defendant A, and merely criticizes the government policy and the political authority. Thus, it does not constitute an election campaign. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicts the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the "election campaign" as provided by the Public Official Election Act.

2) the purchase and the inducement of understanding (Defendant I, J, K)

A) The provision of a democratic site office to the election campaign workers in Busan, including Defendant K, without compensation, to the election campaign workers in Busan, is merely a mere provision of convenience permitted by social norms, but does not constitute a provision of money or goods under Article 230(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act or other benefits. Nevertheless, the judgment below which found Defendant K guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to purchase and establishment of “induction” under the Public Official Election Act.

B) Although Defendant J did not have conspired with Defendant J as to the provision of a democratic site office to Defendant K, etc. as a lodging, Defendant I erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a "public co-principal" under the Criminal Act or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a "public co-principal" against Defendant I.

3) The distribution of documents by unlawful means (defendants)

In the following respect, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

(1) "On-site organization, joint inducements" distributed by the defendant is an act permitted pursuant to Article 95 of the Public Official Election Act, where a labor union's organ or other publications are distributed in a normal way.

② The application of Article 93 of the Public Official Election Act is unfair because the act of distributing the above inducement was conducted within the scope of the trade union’s activities. Even if it falls under the elements of a trade union, it is not unlawful as it does not go against the legitimate act or social rules.

2. Unreasonable sentencing

The court below asserted that the defendants' punishment (the fine of KRW 900,00,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, the fine of KRW 1.5 million, each of the fines of KRW 2.5 million, Defendant D, and E, Defendant I: the fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant G, H, and K: each of the fines of KRW 700,00,000,000,000,000,000,000) declared by the court below is too unreasonable, and the

I. As to Defendant D, E, F, G, and H’s assertion on the misapprehension of the relevant facts or misapprehension of the legal principles regarding “the use of a similar institution”

A. Relevant legal principles

1) Article 61(1) and (2) of the Public Official Election Act strictly regulates persons who establish an election campaign office and a campaign liaison office, which are election campaign organizations, to political parties or candidates, and imposes restrictions on the number and place of establishment, etc., and Article 89(1)3 of the same Act prohibits anyone from establishing, establishing, or using a similar institution on behalf of a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate, other than an election campaign office or election campaign liaison office established under the said provision. The legislative purpose is to maintain fairness in election campaign organizations among candidates, and to prevent excessive competition and waste caused by the establishment of various forms of election campaign organizations, and thus, it is determined by whether any institution, organization, organization, or facility violates the said prohibition provision is established for the purpose of election campaign, and it constitutes an act or function similar to a legitimate election campaign office or election campaign liaison office (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10896, Dec. 26, 2013).

2) Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the term “facilities” as well as similar institutions, organizations, organizations, counseling centers, or resting places, regardless of the name of other persons, shall also be prohibited. Thus, even in a case where a place where election campaigns or other election-related affairs are installed or an existing facility is used, the above crime of insurrection is established under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.

A) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendants gathered with the election campaigners, etc. who belong to M, etc. who use the office of ‘Dong' and ‘Womens' for A' for the election of National Assembly members of M, etc., which is similar to the election campaign office or election campaign office or election campaign liaison office to conduct election affairs, not the ‘organization of accompanying and female association'. Therefore, the circumstance that the accompanying and female association are different from their purpose as separate organizations does not interfere with the recognition of this part of the facts charged.

B) As the lower court properly states, Defendant A’s accompanying office was located at the seat of February 17, 2015, and Defendant B, the Chairperson of the Women’s Association, after about one month from the office of the Women’s Association, had Defendant B, the Chairperson of the Women’s Association, use the female office as the female office with the lessor’s permission. The two offices’ electric usage fees and management fees of the two offices were claimed as the accompanying office (the office of the Women’s Association was not registered as the consumers of electricity, and the customer name of the notice of electric charges claimed as the accompanying office was the “Defendant A, the representative of the accompanying office.” The Defendants asserted that the accompanying office was a separate organization that is operated with membership fees paid by each of the respective members, and that the office of the Women’s Association did not provide detailed explanation on how the office’s management expenses and electric charges were shared and settled at a certain ratio, and that the office of the Women’s Association was not accompanied to the office of the Women’s Association’s members, and that the office of the Women’s Association’s members and its employees did not easily use.

C) Defendant E asked Defendant F, G, and H to assist in the election campaign of Defendant A, with the accompanying or female conference office from time to time, and directly contact the two election campaign workers, including M, with other election campaign workers, Defendant E, along with the contents that Defendant F, G, and H (“Defendant G, a two election campaign worker in the same election campaign office, in the file file file of the current status of the relative who was seized in Defendant B’s book in the same election campaign office, did not go to the accompanying of the resident (585 pages of investigation records), and that “the accompanying document was written by Defendant E” was written in each of the following ways: (a) Defendant E was able to talk with and face the resident; (b) Defendant A was introduced, and (c) Defendant A was sent a news card with the content of his publicity if the other party consents, and (d) recorded the content of each election campaign report, including telephone number of the other party’s phone number, and (e) recorded the content of each election campaign report.

(d) In the accompanying and female conference office, many of the list materials and articles for various election campaign, including a name tag for election campaign in which the response of the other party to the telephone work is written, etc. [1] Defendant A election campaign bulletin, seven-time meeting data, data on election campaign at the accompanying office, name of the candidate (Defendant A), daily activity report (H), address record, contact address of the relative, front voting witness report, name of the candidate (Defendant A), organization member publicity name, list of advance polling campaign, organization member name, file file for advance polling, prote file, prote file, cele-dong modern wave contact, contact number, apartment house, large and small diskettes (including logs manufactured), candidate shoulder, etc., ② documents and articles discovered at the female council: election campaign-related office and articles; election campaign-related documents and articles; election campaign-related documents and articles; election campaign-related documents and articles, such as election campaign materials, daily election campaign books, front election campaign campaign campaigns, women's name, etc.; election campaign campaign campaign campaign district and list of the witness and witness list 26.

2) Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficient to view that the Defendants used the accompanying and female conference office as “facilities similar to the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office” as stated in the judgment of the court below. It does not change even if the accompanying and female council are separate organizations, and the purpose of which is different, or the entrance was different from the entrance.

3) Unlike the office of the Women’s Association, the Defendants are the fact that the accompanying office was operated in the Dong Kafbook and used only for an open space, and that it was not used for election campaign purposes. On April 7, 2016, the discovery of a large number of election campaign diskettes, etc. at the time of search and seizure by the prosecutor’s office was that Defendant E transferred to the accompanying office that was in the preceding female council office (the Defendant E was planned to act in the court of the court below on April 7, 2016, and the members of the Women’s Association made a statement that he transferred election campaign diskettes, etc. in the office of the Women’s Association on April 6, 2016, which was the preceding day, to the accompanying office).

However, for the following reasons, the defendants' arguments are not persuasive, and it is sufficiently recognized that the defendants' arguments were used for the election campaign purposes of the defendant A like the accompanied office's office.

A) On March 18, 2016, Defendant E entered the election campaign headquarters of Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the “Election campaign headquarters”) on March 18, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Election campaign headquarters”), one of the women’s club activities on March 20, 2016, **mmo volunteer group of women (at least 20 family members: 50 members) is accompanied, Defendant A must take part in personnel management (Evidence 1,376 page), Defendant A visited the accompanied office on March 20, 2016, and divided personnel with Defendant A’s members and their family members. In light of the fact that Defendant E visited Defendant A, a candidate who participated in the election of the 20th National Assembly members or in the election of the 20th National Assembly members, it is difficult for Defendant E’s members to take part in the election campaign for female members, and Defendant E’s political activities for the reason that it is difficult for Defendant E’s political activities to take part in the election campaign.

B) At the time of the prosecutor’s search and seizure, the files of “report on pre-determination of the two pre-voting witnesses” were found in the accompanying office as well as large number of election diskettes (around 2,293, 2,820 pages of investigation records).

C) On April 2, 2016, around 12:59, Defendant D sent a text message to V and XX, which is the 2nd election campaigners of the 2nd EFF, the 3rd election campaigners, accompanied by accompanying. The election campaign workers belonging to the 2nd district of Defendant A took part in the accompanying office only at the accompanying office. The election campaign workers belonging to the 2nd district of Defendant A took part in the accompanying office at 2nd time without a meeting of 10 okao Athosts room. The election campaign workers belonging to the 2nd district of Defendant A took part in the accompanying election at 30 minutes of 4:0 p.m. with the organizational team, the vehicle started with the accompanying team, the vehicle started from the accompanying to 4:0 p.m., and the 2nds participating in the collective election campaign at the same time from the accompanying to 4:0 p.m., the vehicle took part in the accompanying to 30:00 p.m. 6:00 p.

4) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendants. The Defendants’ assertion is without

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion (Defendant A and B)

A. The main point of this part of the facts charged is as follows.4

The Defendants (Defendant A and B) share the election campaign conditions, schedule, and method in the district line 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2, and Defendant A instructed or impliedly instructed to use it as similar institutions to the election campaign office 2 and election campaign liaison office 2, and Defendant B, assisting Defendant A to manage election campaign 'Dong' and ' female 2 district 2 district 2 district 3 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2,200 local 30 local 2 district 2 district 2002 local 202 local 2002 local 2002 local 200

Accordingly, the Defendants, D, E, F, G, and H have access to the election of the National Assembly members of the 20th National Assembly to be used by Defendant A as an institution similar to the election campaign office, election campaign liaison office, etc., Defendant B had access to the election campaign worker from February 18, 2016 to April 7, 2016 of the same year (G from March 18, 2016 to April 7, 2016; H had access to the election campaign worker from March 22, 2016 to April 7, 2016 to manage the election campaign worker affairs such as election campaign, etc.; Defendant B had access to the election campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's campaign worker's work.

As a result, Defendants and D, E, F, G and H in collusion with the election campaign workers belonging to M et al., used the office of the 20th National Assembly member election for Defendant A and the 20th National Assembly members as facilities similar to the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office for the purpose of election campaign or other management of election affairs.

B. The judgment of the court below

1) The lower court: (a) took into account the fact that many of the above-mentioned offices were used as similar agencies in A, E, F, G, etc., and Defendant A’s election campaign headquarters’s 1: From 11 to 11:19 on March 201; (b) up to 11:39 on March 28, 2016; (c) up to 19:10 on March 14, 2016; and (d) up to 17:18:5 on April 3, 2016; (d) the fact that many of the above offices were used as similar agencies in A; (e) the election campaign offices were carried out by Defendant B from 6:1 to 6:5 on April 18, 2016; and (e) the fact that many of the office members were accompanied by Defendant C-1 and F-2 on March 16, 2016; and (e) the fact that the office members visited D-2 were visited for election campaign.

2) On the following grounds, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it was sufficient to recognize that the Defendants, including the Defendants and E, used the accompanying and female election campaign team offices to the extent similar to the front office or election campaign liaison office in fact, and that it was sufficient to recognize that they contributed to the crime by means of overall control or management, etc., even though they knew that the aforementioned facts and evidence submitted by the Prosecutor were actually

① It is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant A’s fleet headquarters and 2 District Espons were using two District Espons or Espons as a similar institution solely on the basis of the organization structure or activity of Defendant A’s headquarters and the District Espons or Espons as a similar institution, or that Defendant A and B, the core member of the organization’s leader or Esponsor, knew of the accompanying of the mobilization of the election teams belonging to the said District Espons or the use of a similar institution.

② It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants visited the above office several times to direct or impliedly use a similar institution, such as E, while actually managing the said office.

(3) Above all, there is no clear motive or incentive for the Defendants to use the accompanying and female conference office for the forum of the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office.

C. The judgment of this Court

1) Issues

As seen earlier, Defendant D et al. violated the Public Official Election Act using the accompanying and female conference office as similar facilities. Furthermore, whether Defendant A et al. conspired with the above Defendants to use accompanying and female conference office as similar facilities is related to this part of the facts charged.

2) Relevant legal principles

A) A public invitation of two or more accomplices who jointly commit a crime does not require a certain type of punishment under the law, but is sufficient if there is implicit communication with each other regarding the joint implementation of the crime, directly or indirectly, and even if there is no direct evidence, it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules. The joint implementation of the crime by conspiracy is possible, without the premise that all the accomplices realize the constituent elements of the crime, by itself, to cooperate with the accomplices who realize the realization of the decision on the act. Whether it is reasonable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the understanding of the outcome of the act; (b) the size of participation; and (c) the intent to control the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 206Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006; 2008Do1116, Apr. 11, 2008).

B) Whether any institution, organization, organization, or facility violates the prohibition provisions of the main sentence of Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act is established for the purpose of an election campaign, and is determined by whether it carries out activities or functions similar to lawful election campaign office or election campaign liaison office. Such election campaign refers to an act that may directly or indirectly affect a specific candidate in connection with a specific election, in order to make him/her win or lose his/her election. In addition, if an institution, organization, organization, or facility was established for the purpose of "election" and was used as such as an election campaign office or election liaison office, it is a similar institution under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and it does not necessarily require an election campaign that is not permitted under this Public Official Election Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10896, Dec. 26, 2013).

3) Determination

A) On April 7, 2016, the office of accompanying and female conference was within the scope of management by the Defendants, who were the representative of accompanying and the managing chairperson, even at the time of search and seizure by the prosecution, and the Defendants, as the managing body of the accompanying office, had E, the president of the female council, use and actually manage the accompanying office.

(1) In a local election that took effect on June 2014, Defendant A went out to the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City North Korea. On February 17, 2015, Defendant A leased a accompanying office under his/her name (a security deposit of KRW 15 million/monthly KRW 500,000), and on April 29, 2015, Defendant A established a “convening to the North Korean Village Community”. From that time, Defendant B maintained the representative positions until the completion of the election of the 20th National Assembly member, and Defendant B operated the overall operation of the accompanying office from April 29, 2015 to the completion of the election of the 20th National Assembly member.

(2) Defendant B, the chairman of the company operating accompanied, with the lessor’s permission, ordered the president E to use a space immediately next to the accompanying office as a female council office without compensation. As seen earlier, the electricity fee or management fee of the accompanying office and the office of the female council was claimed as a accompanying office, and it was closely related to each other in terms of location, use, and management, such as the use of part of the accompanying office.

(3) As seen earlier, E engaged in an election campaign for Defendant A by carrying out activities with heavy mobilization of the core line of the CFE, and using the accompanying and female conference office for Defendant A. In light of the relationship between E and the Defendants, the status and role of E in the instant election, etc., it cannot be deemed that E’s use of accompanying office in election campaign and at the same time was carried out regardless of the Defendants, the managing body.

(4) The Defendants asserted to the effect that in preparing the 20th National Assembly election, the management and operation of the accompanying office was entrusted to 0 from January 2016, and they were not aware of the use and operation status of the accompanying office. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants had been actually managing and operating the accompanying office since January 2016 is difficult to believe, with the exclusion of the Defendants from the following grounds.

① At the lower court’s hearing, the organization of 'Dong' in the process of interrogation is present as a witness, and there is an operating committee chairperson, operating committee members, and office members under the supervision of the lower court. The operating committee has up to 10 members, and the operating committee has entered the steering committee once or twice a month. From January 2016, the head of the Dong entered the steering committee because he/she had been in charge of the operation of accompanying as a full-time employee. From January 2016, the head of Dong stated that he/she was in actual charge of the operation of accompanying. He/she responded to the questions of whether 'Dong Dong' in the course of interrogation of the prosecutor later, 'I know that he/she was in full-time member of the lower court'. From May 2015, 200, he/she is not aware that he/she was in actual charge of the management and operation of the Dong Dong-ri's voluntary activities, such as 'I will not know that he/she was in part of his/her official service activities.

② At the time of search and seizure of the accompanying office on April 7, 2016, the Prosecutor called D and E to contact the representative or responsible person of the accompanying office at the time of search and seizure. They called D and E to contact immediately Defendant B. There was no contact between E and the Defendants asserted that the accompanying office was actually managed and operated at the time of search and seizure (the investigation record No. 157 pages, E’s trial testimony).

③ The Defendants alleged that the prosecutor called Defendant A, the election campaign manager at the headquarters of Defendant B at the time to inform the Defendants of the search and seizure. However, the Defendants’ defense counsel stated in the court of first instance that the Defendants called Defendant B, the election campaign manager at the headquarters of Defendant A at the time of the search and seizure. However, in light of the fact that the Defendants’ defense counsel showed a warrant related to the A candidate’s election law at the time of the party’s trial, the Defendants’ defense counsel did not have called the Defendant B, the election campaign manager at the time of the party’s election, and that they were called for the search and seizure of the A candidate’s election law. However, if the Defendants were to be the chairperson of the company’s accompanying, and Defendant B called the Defendant B at the time of the first day. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Defendant B retired from the position of the headquarters from March 16, 2016 to the local office head at the time of the election campaign, the Defendants’ defense at the time of the search and seizure of the B candidate’s election campaign office head was the most.

④ As seen below, Defendant A visited the accompanying office several times on April 3, 2016, and even used the accompanying office for a long time in preparation for a television debate. On April 8, 2016, the following day after the public prosecutor’s search and seizure of the accompanying office was conducted, Defendant A revealed that “the one-year office was seized and searched.” (Investigation record 680-682 pages).

B) The Defendants appears to have been in need of using the office of accompanying and female conference for election campaign against the 2-dong residents, and this is also back through the fact that the 2-dong election campaigners, including E, engaged in real election campaign by using the office of accompanying and female conference as follows.

(1) On February 7, 2016, E drafted a document stating that “2016 senior patrolman” was 2016 senior patrolman’s status and organization status and organization status (hereinafter referred to as “documents of total 2016 senior patrolman’s status”) (the document of total 2016 senior patrolman was discovered in the computer of the female conference office at the time of seizure and search by the prosecutor’s office on April 7, 2016, and was recorded on the computer as of February 14, 2016 (the investigation record 1,766 pages), and E was “at the trial court of a political party, this document was prepared by the end of February 2016.”

(2) In the documents of 2016 total election, the two voting rates and three voting rates per candidate are recorded from the local election from 2010 to the 2014 local election (including the total election from 2012 to the 2014 local election). On the other hand, the two voting rates and three voting rates per candidate are stated in the analysis on the characteristics and status of the two and three voting parties in the agricultural and fishery districts. On the other hand, the three voting districts are relatively higher than the two voting districts. The basic recognition for the three voting districts is as follows. The voting rate is relatively higher than 2:2 to 5%. On the other hand, the number of local activities and workers living in Korea for a long time, the stable employment (including the women's and apartment activities, the agricultural and fishery activities, the occupants' association, the children's association, the children's association, the children's association, the children's volunteer activities, and the following 7 library. On the other hand, it is analyzed that the two voting districts are located in the library for a long time.

- The local activity base is not high (in the process of women's conference, small library activity level) - voting rate also falls off to 3 east, the situation where there is a lot of right holder who is not aware of our candidates and there is a change in the voting rate depending on the blocking rate. The situation where there is a large number of eligible applicants who are not our country, and the number of eligible applicants who are not our country, and the number of votes varies depending on the blocking rate - the political party theory of LL is realizing most of the two long long-standing residents accommodation projects, Otoke, 7th country expansion, etc., and the stable or past Gaps debate, the persons who are qualified as members of the National Assembly shall not be elected, and the active projects for the candidates in our country, which are known relatively to the residents, should not be implemented, except for the extreme apartment with high support rate, modern apartment, which is high.

In other words, the number of regular school employees is high (*** * * * * Initial, etc.) due to a large number of schools (including a situation in which Mco has continuously failed to take a hand) - If there is a lot of opinion that the two developments are relatively difficult at the latest compared to three (3).

(3) An election campaign and a relative organization project, etc. conducted against the residents of the apartment units with a large number of apartment units of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MM et al.) identified as the target of the said documents in the said documents, consisting of an election campaign by directly contact the residents of the apartment, allowing them to walk or face in the vicinity of the apartment complex, introducing the Defendant A, and sending a news card to the other party when the other party consents. The election campaignmen are convenient and convenient to carry out document work, such as having contact the residents of the apartment complex, having a large amount of apartment units (MM et al.) and entering their reactions, etc. to the residents of the apartment complex.

(4) The office of accompanying and female members was established first than the election campaign office of Defendant A. From the location of the office, the office of accompanying and female members was located more convenient and favorable than the election campaign office of Defendant A. The office of accompanying and using the accompanying office was located much more convenient and favorable than the election campaign office of Defendant A, since at least 1 km away from the election campaign office of Defendant A, at least 1 km away from the apartment building of Defendant A (Fuuo 1, 2nd, IMco, etc.).

(5) In fact, E was working as the core members of the instant election campaign, while requesting F, G, and H to assist Defendant A to carry out an election campaign, and called F, G, and H from time to time, and was engaged in an election campaign with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, and election campaign against 2-dong residents, especially apartment residents (F, M, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, E, and P, E, who were working as the 1st election campaign office at the election campaign site, and who was working as the 2nd election campaign office at the 1st election campaign site, and that it was working as the 2nd election campaign office at the 1st election campaign site, and that it was working as the 2nd election campaign office at the 2nd election campaign site, which was located in the 2nd election campaign site, and that it was working as the 2nd election campaign office at the 1st election campaign site, and that it was working as the 2nd election campaign party.

C) The Defendants entered several offices to accompany and female conference offices during the election campaign period, and the Defendants directly used the accompanying office for their own election campaign.

(1) As stated in the lower judgment, Defendant A and his/her office from around 11:11 to around 11:19, March 16, 2016; from around 11:15 to 11:39, March 2016; from around 19:10 to 19:35, April 3, 2016; from around 14:28, April 3, 2016 to around 17:18; from around 19:5 to around 21:5, April 6, 2016; from around 3:18:23 to 18:5; from around 23:4:46 to April 7, 2016; and from around 10:16:3; and from around 16:16:4 to around 105; and from around 16:16:4 to around 16, 2016 to Defendant B’s office; and

(2) Defendant A visited the accompanying office seven times before and after the election campaign period, and the main door schedule is as follows.

(1) Visits on March 20, 2016: 11:15-11:39:

On March 18, 2016, the daily activity report prepared by E: 3/20 S. S. 10 S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.. S. S.... S......... S..............

(2) On March 28, 2016: Visiting around 10 to 19:35:

The E’s pocket book includes 10:00 plenary session’s 26:0 p.m., 7:00 p.m., and 19:0 p.m., 3:00 p.m., Defendant A’s 3.m.’s 28m.’s 20m.’s 26:0 p.m.’s 6,239m., E, E, G, M, and X’s 2m.’s 19:0 p.m.’s 19:0 p.m.’s 6:0 p.m.’s 206m.’s 3m.’s 206m.’s 19:0 p.m.’s 19:19:35m.’s 19:35m.’s 206m.’s 206m.’s 206m.’s 3m.’s 201m.

(3) Visit from April 3, 2016 to 17:18, and from 19:55 to 21:51:

Defendant A visited the accompanying office for more than five hours and prepared a debate on TV.

(4) Visit from around 18:23 to around 18:51 on April 6, 2016

On April 6, 2016, the inside schedule prepared by Defendant A’s prior headquarters situation room, stated that “18:00, school expenses, the North Korean branch of the farmland association (content), the accompanying place, and the % (Recommendation) (Recommendation)” (in the investigation record 6,255 pages). As Defendant A’s election campaign workers, the % of the members of the North Korean branch of the school non-regular workers were collected from the accompanying office at the % of the % of the number of the members of the school non-regular workers who were in charge of the school non-regular workers and arranged for them to conduct election campaigns, Defendant A made a support lake and marsh from April 18:23, 2016 to the accompanying office at around 18:51.

(5) Visits from around April 7, 2016 to around 10:05

On April 7, 2016, prepared by Defendant A’s C’s preemptive headquarters situation room, Defendant A visited the accompanying office from April 6 to 10:05, as indicated in the candidate’s schedule “10:0 persons engaged in monthly activities at a democratic site (the details), accompanying, and reference: persons and personnel, recommendation: labor union leader (the investigation record 3,139 pages), and Defendant A visited Defendant A from April 6 to 10:05.

(3) As such, Defendant A visited the accompanying office to meet several people and took a lake and marsh to support them, participated in the election campaign workers’ meetings, and prepared for his TV discussions. Such activities are not significantly different from Defendant A’s activities conducted at the election campaign office for a similar period of time (such as Defendant A’s activity activities at the home childcare center federation, construction plant members’ meetings, Busan-gu members’ meetings, Busan-do public announcement motive meetings, Blueing Women’s Support Meeting, Blueing Women’s Support Meeting, etc., and attendance at various election campaign meetings).

D) The Defendants perceived the fact that hot mobilizations, including E, of the two agricultural and fishery teams, directly and through the headquarters, used the accompanying and female office for election campaign purposes. However, the Defendants impliedly approved the fact that they were using the accompanying and female office.

(1) The document of the 2016 total election campaigned by E contains a Do chart stating the name and contact point of the core of the Do chart, and includes a Do chart stating that “the co-ownership of the main situation” is made in the remarks column of the Do chart. (Investigation Record 1,769 pages), E divided a daily activity report into F, G, and H, who is the 200 election campaign workers, and entered the daily activity report in the report. Accordingly, F, G, and H, while carrying out the election campaign Dong, prepared a daily activity report stating the activity contents to E. The daily activity report form is written in the separate column stating that “the schedule to be known to the main body of the ship, the contents to be reported to the main body, and the surrounding public opinion,” and accordingly, the report was made to G, etc. and the following information was made to the Do group of Defendant E:

A person shall be appointed.

(2) As seen earlier, the daily activity report prepared by E on March 18, 2016 includes 3/20 :0 am 10 am Macecheon Women's Association* Mammo volunteer training. 20 am 50 am 20 am 11,376 am Mace Mace Mace Mace Mace Mace Mace Mace Mace Mace. (Investigation Records 1,376 am 1,376 am). The candidate's schedule prepared by reflecting the contents requested by E in the preference situation room of Defendant A was 11:00 on March 20, 200 * MaMaMa' Family volunteer service group, place: accompanying, recommendation: Defendant 1 was accompanied by a statement that “E” is (in investigation records 6, 232 am Ma, and Defendant A was divided into Mace 113:15 am 13:19, 2016.

(3) As indicated in the reasoning of the lower judgment, Defendant A’s prior headquarters meetings consisting of the plenary session, the main session, the main session, the prior session, the main session, and the prior session meetings. Two district meetings consisting of two district meetings, including C, D, E, and F, and two district meetings were present at the two district meetings, and two district meetings were planned and reported on two district activities, such as the relative organization and projects promoting Defendant A.

(4) Two district election campaigners, such as C, D, E, and F, have consistently participated in the plenary session of the Republic of Korea, and the aforementioned meetings share the schedule and contents of district meetings, and the process of implementation of district activation plans, such as relative organization and business. On April 14, 2016, there were many materials such as the documents discovered in the office of the accompanying and female election.

(5) The Defendants seem to have known that the election campaignmen, while entering the accompanying office, used the accompanying and female conference offices, and have been manufacturing various election campaign pocketbooks.

(1) On April 7, 2016, the Prosecutor’s Office seized and searched the accompanying and female office (270-679 pages, investigation records, 693-1,648 pages) at the time, two district election campaign witnesses’ report, schedule of candidates, seven times’ report on election campaign workers (290 pages), daily activity report, and various list of election campaign campaign workers were collected, (1,649-2, 141 pages) at the computer, 2016 total number of election campaign workers’ records, 70-6 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 36-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 270-7 election campaign workers’ report number, 276-2

② Defendant A, who visited the accompanying office from 09:46 to 10:06 on the same day ( April 7, 2016), failed to look at such various election-related materials that were in the accompanying office, in light of the empirical rule, it is difficult for Defendant A to believe (the Defendant A stated that he did not have visited the accompanying office during the election campaign period, and that he made a false answer that he had not visited the prosecutor’s office because he was at the court below acknowledged the fact of visit in the court below, and that he made a false answer that he had not visited him because he was at the same time unfavorable to him). Defendant A did not have any money related to such election within the accompanying office at the time when Defendant A visited the accompanying office, and there was no ground or circumstance to deem that such large number of election-related materials were moved to the accompanying office from 15:0 to 150,000 when seizure and search of the accompanying office was initiated, as seen earlier, Defendant A had been holding the accompanying office to 2016.

③ As indicated in the holding of the court below, while Defendant A visited 7 times and Defendant B twice, a large number of election campaignmen had access to the office of the Korean election campaign worker and female council by putting a yellow clothes, putting them into an election ticket, etc., the Defendants ought to be deemed to have recognized that the election campaign workers are taking advantage of the number of election campaignmen and female council offices.

④ As seen earlier, considering the following circumstances, the Defendants recognized that E, D and Defendants, the core election campaign team members of the second district, including the deaf-do Office 2 Dong, which used accompanying and the office of female conference for the purpose of election campaign from February 2016 to April 7, 2016, carried out an election campaign against the residents of the deaf-gu 2 apartment group together with F, G, H, etc. while staying in the office of female conference as the president of the female council, and the Defendants were well aware of the fact that E was the president of the female council and was able to use the accompanying office while staying in the office of the female council.

(6) The Defendants and Defendant A’s head of the election campaign headquarters confirmed that most of the activities of Defendant A were carried out by the election commission for the 20th election of National Assembly members because they were punished several times, and that E et al. used the 20th election campaign office for the purpose of carrying out the campaign, but E et al. asserted that E et al. used the 20th election campaign office for the purpose of carrying out the campaign, but E et al. stated that E et al. used the 20th election campaign office for the purpose of carrying out the campaign at the 20th election campaign office * 3rd Women’s 20th election campaign group * on March 28, 200, Defendant A et al. was accompanied by the 6th election campaign office 'the 6th election campaign office 'the 6th election campaign office 'the 1st election campaign office 'the 6th election campaign office 'the 6th election campaign office 'the 6th election campaign office ' is not accompanied by Defendant E et al.

E) Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendants can fully recognize the fact that heavy mobilizations, including E, etc., belonging to the 20th National Assembly members election, use the office of 'Dong' and ' Women's Association' for the purpose of election campaign or other facilities similar to the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office for the purpose of election campaign or for the purpose of election campaign in the 20th National Assembly members election, and in collusion with them as the facts charged, such as allowing them to use the office as the managing body of the accompanying office, allowing them to use it with the intention of joint processing, and directly using the accompanying and female office for the purpose of election campaign together with E, etc.

4) Sub-determination

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a joint principal offender under the Criminal Act and serious mistake of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor’s assertion has merit.

III. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles concerning the "the point of a preliminary election campaign" 1. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant C, D, E, and F

A. As to the assertion that Defendant A did not appeal for support

1) The judgment of the court below

The Defendants also asserted the same in the lower court. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined in the lower court, including the statement that six persons, including W, who was the other party to the phone call at the time, claimed that the other party complained for the support of Defendant A at the time of telephone call at the time of “the telephone call at the lower court” and that Defendant E, etc. complained for the support of A, as shown in this part of the facts charged.

2) The judgment of this Court

Even if the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below and the court below examined it closely, there is no reason to reject or suspect the credibility of the 6th court's testimony such as W, etc.

B. As to the assertion that an election campaign does not constitute an election campaign

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ appeal of the candidate’s appeal to the Defendant 1 constitutes an election campaign under Article 59 of the Public Official Election Act, where the candidate’s act of making the candidate’s election does not constitute an election campaign according to the candidate’s intention, rather than the procedure prescribed by the Act, unlike the intra-party competition. (2) In so doing, if the act of making the candidate’s election in the candidate unification procedure does not constitute an election campaign, it may result in the evasion of Article 59 of the Public Official Election Act, which limits the period of election at the candidate’s own discretion; and (3) even if the act of making the candidate unification procedure is treated differently from the act of making the candidate elected in the intra-party competition, as well as the legislative purpose of the relevant laws and regulations, it is difficult to view it as an unreasonable discrimination as an act to realize political party politics as prescribed by the Constitution, barring special circumstances, the Defendants’ act of making the candidate elected in the candidate unification procedure constitutes an election campaign under Article 57 of the Public Official Election Act.

2) The judgment of this Court

In full view of the circumstances properly explained by the court below, including the contents of Article 59 of the Public Official Election Act and the purport of recognizing the exception in the intraparty competition, and the fact that it cannot be deemed that the procedures for arbitrary simplification of the intraparty competition and the candidates cannot be seen as the same, the court below's judgment holding that the act of Defendant E, etc. called Defendant E to the members of the modern vehicle in the process of voluntary simplification of candidates between Defendant A and 2 as shown in this part of the facts charged constituted an election campaign and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on this. The Defendants' assertion is without merit.

C. As to Defendant C’s public invitation (Defendant C’s assertion)

1) The judgment of the court below

Defendant C also asserted the same in the lower court. The lower court rejected Defendant C’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) considering the circumstance that the telephone work for modern vehicle employees in the process of the simplification of candidates was discussed as the core project in the district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2, Defendant C, etc., comprehensively under the direction of Defendant C and D, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant C planned the organization project to prepare for the simplification of inventive candidates and carried out the pre-

2) The judgment of this Court

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is to examine the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below and the trial of the case closely (as the court below has properly explained, the defendant D prepared the "three factory telephone work data" (Investigation Record 6,264 pages), the "Engine-to-explosion list" (Investigation Record 6,267 pages), etc., and shared the roles of the defendant E, F, X, and Jin, and reported it to the defendant C, who is the person in charge of the district line 2 (On the mobile phone of the defendant C, the above data was also discovered (Investigation Record 10,056, 10,058 pages) and the status of the defendant C and the defendant D. In light of the relationship between the defendant C and the defendant D., the defendant D and the defendant D's report to the defendant D and the defendant C, who made a preliminary election campaign in advance without being inconsistent with the defendant C are not justified in the judgment of the court below and there is no error in the misapprehension of law.

(d) Shares that cannot be punished as an advance election campaign because they could not have an influence on the election.

As to the chief of chapter (defendant C’s assertion)

Unlike a contribution act under the Public Official Election Act, since there is no other party to an election campaign under the Public Official Election Act, the other party to the election campaign does not constitute an election campaign only if the other party to the election campaign is in the constituency of a specific candidate to promote the election or the defeat in the election, or is in a relation with the elector, or an institution, organization, facility, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do19043 Delivered on March 30, 207). Therefore, W, ***** even if Y is not a non-member, or is not a Gu resident of the Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, a lake and marsh for support against him is also an election campaign under the Public Official Election Act, and the decision of the court below that rejected the above assertion by Defendant C is justifiable in the same purport. Defendant C’s assertion is without merit.

(e) The assertion that the part concerning Y is an act that does not go against the socially accepted rules (Defendant C);

As the court below properly explained, considering the Defendants’ motive and background of the instant crime by phone call to X and asked Defendant A to publicize the surrounding areas, even if there was a friendly relationship as alleged by the Defendants between X and X, it cannot be deemed as a mere courtesy of X’s action of support and that it does not go against the social rules. The court below’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is justified, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by Defendant C, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s argument

(a) Telephone advance election campaigns for the remainder of 280 persons other than W, etc. (Defendant C, D,

E With respect to the acquittal of reasons for E/F

1) Even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that Defendant E and F et al. had urged Defendant E and F to participate in mobile voting for the remaining 280 persons other than W et al., and appealed against Defendant A. Unlike the Prosecutor’s assertion, considering the fact that Defendant E and F et al. have organized telephone publicity against modern vehicle employees, the number of samples is less than that of the phone calls for the remaining 280 persons based on the six statements including W et al., and the fact that VV, one of the remaining 280 telephone calls, stated to the effect that the phone calls at the time of the lower court’s trial are not well memory. In light of the fact that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, it is insufficient to conclude that Defendant E and F et al. have asserted support against Defendant A even 280 persons who were machineed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2) In the same purport, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is justifiable and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to this kind of appeal

B. As to the telephone prior election campaign against Defendant A

1) The judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on Defendant A on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor was insufficient to recognize that Defendant A knew of a prior election campaign by telephone, including Defendant E, through the headquarters or through other circumstances, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2) The judgment of this Court

If the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, such judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal. The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

IV. Regarding the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the "the point of advance election campaign in the form of one-person demonstration, etc."

Judgment

1. The common arguments of the defendant A, C, D, F, and J (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") (the first person demonstration, etc. of this case)

As to whether it constitutes an election campaign

A. The meaning of "election campaign" under the Public Official Election Act and the criteria for its determination

In order to punish a person in accordance with Article 254(2)7 of the Public Official Election Act (pre-election), the relevant act itself should be recognized as a "election campaign". Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do11812 Decided August 26, 2016, the following specific criteria were presented to determine whether a person constitutes an "election campaign" under the Public Official Election Act.

1) The term “election campaign” refers to an act that can be objectively recognized for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election, and whether such act constitutes an act ought to be objectively determined on the subject of an act expressed outside, not an internal intent of the principal.

2) The foregoing intent can be acknowledged not only by explicitly expressing the intention to leave a specific election and requesting support for it, but also by readily expressing the intention to seek an election or defeat in the election from a specific election from the perspective of the elector’s perspective in light of the objective circumstances at the time. To deem the existence of such intent, the mere fact that the relationship with the election can be inferred or that the elector was motiveed for matters related to the election ought to be based on an objective circumstance that enables the elector to clearly recognize that the act is an act of promoting an election at a specific election.

3) Since the subject of an election campaign is an important conceptual sign that the pertinent act is specified, it can be deemed that the pertinent act constitutes an election campaign only when it is recognized that it is for a specific election. However, in full view of various objective circumstances, such as the prediction or confirmation of the implementation of a specific election, the time interval between the time of the pertinent act and the specific election day, the contents and the situation at the time of the relevant act, and the relationship between the offender and the candidate, the reasonable determination of whether the pertinent act was subject to a specific election from the

4) If the pertinent act appears in the form of an activity through an organization, etc., further consideration of the purpose and details of the establishment of the organization, etc., human composition, timing, method, details, and size of the activity shall be given from the perspective of the elector in question as to whether such activity was objectively recognized from the point of view of the elector in question, with the intention to promote a specific person’s election or defeat in a specific

B. Determination

1) In light of the following circumstances, the first person demonstration, the attendance campaign, the distance publicity prior to the attendance campaign (referred to as the "one person demonstration, etc. of this case" in this case) was planned and actively conducted with a view to gathering the election of the Defendant A by closely cooperating with the organization that was led by the Defendant A under the initiative of the head of the fleet headquarters of the Defendant A, with a view to gathering the election of the Defendant A.

A) On February 21, 2016, Defendant A’s C’s first meeting of the Organization (Investigation Record 3,978 pages) and “D-43 plenary session 2 district meeting” stated as follows: [The investigation record 3,914 pages; further, the second district election campaign personnel’s damage to the Defendant C through the Kakakakakakao group holding bank was sent to Defendant C, etc. on February 29, 2045 (Monthly 1) - On February 29, 2016, the title “D-45 2 district election campaign guidelines” includes one person demonstration - one person demonstration from the date of the increase, two years before the request for apartment. - The investigation records 10,047 pages; 200 local election campaign material, such as three-party election campaign material; and 100 local election campaign material, such as three-party election campaign material, etc. as set forth by the plenary session. 27th of March 2016.

B) On February 19, 2016, ‘A' program log of the Central Headquarters' was included in the 3rd anniversary of the 19th 2016 situation room (the investigation record 3,899 pages), the content of the program log No. 2, including the content of N's support for the election campaign by Defendant A, including N's interference with the broadcast of N's N', and the content of the program log No. 2, including the number of participants, large glocket, banner, banner, etc.: on March 3, 2016; on March 3, 2016, the program log No. 37, the program log No. 37, the program log No. 2, the program log No. 47, the program log No. 37, the program log No. 2, the program log No. 5, the program log No. 2, the program log No. 1, the program log No. 3, the program log No. 2, the program log No. 2, the program log No. 1, the program log No. 2. 3.

C) Defendant I’s cell phone siren type data (Investigation Record No. 10,039) contains the following contents: (a) Defendant I’s cell phone forensic type data (Investigation Record No. 10,039); (b) Defendant A’s election of the candidate for workers in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do; and (c) Defendant A’s representative office for the purpose of winning the general line on April 13, 200; (d) Defendant A’s dispatch the Vice-Chairperson of the Democratic Site MM to the Organization’s name; and (e) one person’s demonstration; and (e) progress prior to his attendance, etc.; and (e) Defendant J’s representative of the Political Party at the Democratic Site’s temporary phone type data (Investigation Record No. 10,037 page) contains a content on the agenda on the operation of the democratic site as the temporary line for

D) The GG et al., the chief secretary of Q and the Democratic Site Headquarters, stated to the effect that the organizations, such as QG et al. in the lower court’s law, were supporting Defendant A, who is the candidate for the progress of the organization at the level of organization.

2) The instant one-person demonstration was conducted from February 22, 2016 to March 14, 2016, from March 7, 2016 to March 14, 2016, from March 7, 2016 to March 8, 2016, and from March 27, 2016 to March 27, 2016, respectively, at the 20th National Assembly member election day ( April 13, 2016).

3) The actors, such as the instant one-person demonstration, were all campaigners of Defendant A as follows.

A) The first-person demonstration was carried out by the election campaign members belonging to two districts for time and place (10,052 pages) and the Defendant C, D, F, etc., who carried out a first-person demonstration, were all election campaign members belonging to two districts.

B) On March 7, 2016, both Defendant J, who participated in the work publicity with Defendant A prior to the work publicity, and Defendant A’s election campaign worker who participated prior to the Defendant’s work publicity on March 8, 2016.

C) On March 27, 2016, the street publicity day was also conducted by Defendant A’s election campaign workers, YY, etc.

4) In light of the content of the Paints used in the instant 1-person demonstration, etc. objectively revealed as follows, it seems that it could have been easily recognized that it was the content promoting the defeat of the candidate for the new satise party belonging to that time from the perspective of the general elector responding to it from the perspective of the general elector.

A) The clocks of one-person demonstration include a string of three years of gambling and three years of gambling, the phrase, 's dialogues with the end of the war,' and the phrase, 'I will change from the end of the head to the end of the war', 'I will change the clocks to the end of the clocks' (the investigation record 6,958-7, 447 pages). This is identical or similar to Defendant A's promotional materials or the clocks of the demonstration directly conducted by Defendant A (the content of the clocks cited by Defendant A on March 7, 2016, as the clocks used by Defendant A as the clocket for three years of gambling, the clock of the country, the labor union, the clock of the clock, the clock of the clock, the clock of the clock in the war).

B) ① At the time of Defendant J’s attendance publicity prior to March 7, 2016, the term “for example, three years of gambling benefit.” The term was posted to Defendant J’s banner, i.e., three years of gambling benefit, opposition to labor change, and peace instead of war, and this is the same as the Plastet that Defendant A used in the immediately following (in the investigation record, 34 pages, 7,112, 7,116 pages), and ii) on March 8, 2016, the date of the attendance publicity prior to the arrival of the work on March 8, 2016 : (a) the Kim Jong, etc. stated the word “in the front of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle entrance in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Seoul, the phrase “one hundred to three times of the investigation records,” and (b) Defendant A took place in the presence of “one to three times of the investigation records,” and (c) the phrase “one to nine nine times of the investigation records,” and the attendance of the work.

C) On the banners and diskettes prior to the street publicity, the phrases such as 'welved network' in the three-year period of gambling, 'economic network-friendly regime', 'economic network-friendly regime relationship', 1,208 re-retained reserve fund 710, 'est dismissal low-income wage', 'Mlved 3 years of gambling-oriented regime', 'Mlved labor reform, 's dismissal, lifelong non-regular position, long-time wage' were posted, and some of the election campaign workers suffered a yellow flive clothes for Defendant A.

D) As indicated in the holding of the court below, ① issues such as labor reform bills, grown arrangement, closure measures of the GIC, Han Il-sung's agreement, etc., led or promoted by the Government at the time, and the sinking of the Sewol ferry, etc., which were controversial in political and social aspects, have a very negative impact on the evaluation of the Government and the ruling party. ② The above political issues were in a situation where there was no way to find any particular resolution measures even at the time of each crime, so the election day is imminent and there is a high possibility that the voters would have negative views on the candidate for the above issues. ③ Defendant A's election campaign headquarters is sufficiently aware of this fact, and Defendant A's election campaign headquarters is also expected to have a negative perspective on the candidate for the election of the National Assembly member at the time of the 20th National Assembly member election, and it seems that Defendant A explicitly planned such issues through one-person demonstration, etc. at the same time, and prevented Defendant A from participating in the election of the National Assembly member at the same time.

5) Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the instant one-person demonstration, etc. was continuously made in a similar way to that that continuously been continuously made by organizations, such as Ulsan Jindo Joint & several, democratic sites, etc., it cannot be deemed that it was an ordinary group activity or political expression independently and independently conducted irrespective of Defendant A’s election campaign, and the 20th National Assembly member election, promoting the fall of the candidate for the new one (including proportional representative candidates at the time) (including proportional representative candidates) in the election of the 20th National Assembly members, while clearly recognizing the purpose of seeking A’s votes who completed the registration as a preliminary candidate belonging to North Korea-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and could have known the intention of such objective from the perspective of the elector.

6) In the same purport, the lower judgment that determined that the instant first-class demonstration, etc. constituted an election campaign is justifiable and erroneous, or there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on election campaign under the Public Official Election Act.

2. As to Defendant A and C’s assertion

(a) argument that the content of the PPP does not be specified or that the act was not individually determined;

section 22.

1) The 11-person demonstration listed in the 11-person demonstration listed in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below is specifically identified, and this is supported by the evidence (such as investigation record 6,958-7, 447 pages, 9,124 pages, etc.) duly adopted and examined at the court below as follows, and thus, Defendant C’s assertion that the content of the 11-person demonstration was not specified is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Reviewing each act of 11th individual demonstration, and each act of March 7, 2016 and March 8, 2016 prior to the public relations of attendance at work, and the distance propaganda ( March 27, 2016) individually, it is determined that the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit, as seen earlier, that it was conducted with the intention of promoting the defeat of the candidate for the 20th National Assembly member election (at that time), while promoting the defeat of the candidate for the 20th National Assembly member election from the perspective of the elector who engaged in each act from the perspective of the electors who engaged in the 20th National Assembly member election.

B. The defendants (the defendants A, C, and et al.) are limited to "the defendants when they observe all the two."

C) As to the assertion that no contest has been offered

1) Whether the Defendants’ one-person demonstration is offered

A) As seen in the preceding paragraph, in addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, including Defendant C and Defendant A’s election campaign members who share the same time and place as one of the election campaign headquarters’s planned and dynamics, and the fact that Defendant A’s election campaign workers shared their roles, i.e., “Defendant A participated in essential matters, such as TV discussions, production of pledges, name cards, candidate schedule, etc.” The Defendant’s testimony at the lower court ( particularly, Defendant A’s election campaign headquarters’s schedule and several organizations that the Defendant would have been in charge of the head of the situation at the time of the election campaign, i.e., the number of times during which the Defendants were in charge of the election campaign, and the number of times during which the Defendants were in charge of the election campaign campaign at the time of the election campaign campaign, and the number of times during which the Defendants were in charge of the election campaign at the time of the election campaign at the time of the election campaign at the time of the first election campaign office and the number of times during which the Defendants were in charge of the election campaign at the front.

B) The election campaign members of Defendant A who participated in the instant one-person demonstration, such as Defendant C, share the schedule and place for the election of Defendant A during the 20th National Assembly meeting, and share each other’s roles for the purpose of winning the election of Defendant A, and continuously proceed with it over a long time as indicated in the list of crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below. It is sufficiently recognized that there was a co-processing and functional control over other person’s one-person demonstration as well as the one-person demonstration as well as one-person demonstration as the one-person demonstration as indicated in the judgment of the court below. Of the one-person demonstration listed in the list of crimes No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant C’s assertion that the relationship with Defendant C cannot be established as to one-person demonstration other than

2) Whether Defendant A was offered prior to his attendance at work and publicity prior to his distance.

A) Defendant A also made the same assertion in the lower court. The lower court determined that Defendant A rejected Defendant A’s assertion in detail on the grounds of its determination, and that Defendant A conspireded with RR, etc. with the J and J on March 7, 2016, ② UU, etc. on March 8, 2016, and ③ on March 27, 2016, with the street publicity prior to the attendance at work.

B) If the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

C. As to the assertion that there was no perception of illegality

1) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding." The purpose of the Criminal Act is that a person is not punishable if, in general, he/she knows that his/her act constitutes a crime but, in his/her own special circumstances, he/she is not a crime permitted under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and that he/she has a justifiable reason to mislead misunderstanding. Whether there is a justifiable reason should be determined depending on whether he/she was unable to recognize the illegality of his/her act as a result of his/her failure, even though he/she was likely to have known the illegality of his/her act, and the degree of efforts necessary for recognizing the above legal nature should be determined differently according to the specific circumstances of the act, the person's ability to recognize the identity of the offender, and the social group to which the actor belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do11679, Jul. 15, 2010).

2) As seen earlier, the first person demonstration, etc. of this case was planned and actively conducted under the initiative of Defendant A’s prior headquarters (the “seven plenary session” data from March 20, 2016 includes the content that the Defendants should bring about a public issue through one person demonstration, etc. as measures to get on and off an election). Defendant A, from 1988 to 2002, did not appear to have been aware of the Defendants’ efforts to engage in an election campaign, including the election campaign, to the extent that the Defendants did not have been aware of the fact that the Defendants did not want to participate in the election campaign, such as the election campaign, etc., for a long time since 202 to 2010, including the election campaign, and the election campaign, for which the Defendants did not appear to have been aware that the Defendants did not have any reason to believe that the Defendants were unlawful. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ efforts to constitute an election campaign, such as the election campaign, etc., within the same period of time as the election campaign management committee.

V. Determination of the misapprehension of the relevant facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding “the purchase and inducement of understanding” 1. Determination of Defendant I, J and K’s assertion

A. As to the defendants' common assertion (which does not constitute "the provision of money, goods or other benefits")

1) The Defendants asserted the same in the lower court also. The lower court determined that, although the Defendant’s office was a democratic field office, it is not a public and simple office that can be freely used without permission, and that from the standpoint of a person who received it and used it for accommodation purposes, the Defendants would gain economic benefits to save withdrawals equivalent to accommodation expenses. ② University students, who were supported by Busan, reached a total of 50 persons. Of them, eight university students who were accommodated in a democratic field office, and the number of university students who were accommodated in a democratic field, and the number of university students who were accommodated in a democratic site was about 30 days per day, and the period of accommodation provided was about 2 weeks, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the charges. In full view of the foregoing, the lower court determined that the number of university students in Busan, including Defendant K, exceeded the ordinary scope of convenience or the degree of courtesy or other benefits, constitutes the provision of money, goods, and other benefits.

2) In light of the circumstances revealed by the court below, the democratic site office offered to Defendant K, etc., along with the circumstances described in the court below, was a facility where the democratic site was leased and used in the monthly deposit of KRW 10 million and KRW 400,000,000, and the members shared the monthly rent of KRW 100,000,00, and Defendant K, etc. did not provide the democratic site office with accommodation, the court below’s above determination is just, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as in the course of appeal. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that there was no contestation with J (Defendant I’s assertion)

1) Defendant I also argued in the lower court. The issue of preparing for the above-mentioned articles was that Defendant I provided 1's accommodation to the Busan National University's University's University's University's University's Democratic Party's Democratic Party's Democratic Party's University's University's Sc Party's Democratic Party's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day's Day'

2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to misconception of facts as the grounds for appeal. Defendant I’s assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion (Defendant A part)

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows.

The defendant, I, and J had the main election campaign in front of the main election campaign and carried out the election campaign for the defendant in Ulsan for the university students in Busan, such as K, the defendant, I, and J had the aim to support the democratic site office free of charge.

On the other hand, at the place of an election campaign site or a democratic site office, the defendant sawd with the heavy mobilization of college students such as K, and led to fear of them.

Accordingly, the defendant, I, and J provided the benefit of accommodation equivalent to the amount of money, free of charge, by providing, from March 30, 2016 to April 12, 2016, the Ulsan Northern-gu**** the democratic site office in the Ulsan-gu*** the democratic site office in the Ulsan-gu.

Accordingly, in collusion with I and J, the Defendant provided money or other benefits in relation to the election campaign.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Defendant A’s election campaign was led by the Central Headquarters, and that Defendant A was involved only in important matters, such as TV debate, production of a pledge book, order, candidate schedule, etc., and that Defendant A was specifically aware of all the duties that Defendant A proceeded with. Although there were several discussions with the Central Headquarters since the problem of accommodation of college students in Busan District was not resolved well, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A was an important matter to the extent that Defendant A was required to directly participate in the election campaign at the time when the election day is imminent. ② According to the list of candidates (Investigation Record 4,857 pages) on April 1, 2016, the college students’ photo (Investigation Record 9,951 page 9,951 page), Defendant A was not aware of the above facts that Defendant A’s election campaign was not provided to Defendant A’s National Assembly members on April 23, 2016 on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A’s election campaign had been provided to Defendant A’s National Assembly members at the Busan District.

C. The judgment of this Court

1) Even if all of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court were examined, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A offered K, etc. an office of the I, J and a democratic field as a lodging, or conspired to commit these crimes.

2) Furthermore, as stated in the judgment of the court below, there is no evidence that Defendant A received a report from Defendant A on the issue of providing accommodation to K, etc. at that time, and at that time, the election day was imminent. The issue of providing accommodation to university students is so important that Defendant A cannot be seen as being directly involved. It is also reasonable that Defendant A did not report this issue to Defendant A from the preemptive headquarters because the issue of providing accommodation to university students was difficult. It is difficult to conclude that Defendant A knew the fact that Defendant A was provided with accommodation free of charge during the election period on April 1, 2016 solely on the ground that Defendant A mets with university students in Busan, including Defendant K, at the democratic site office at a democratic site, once in April 1, 2016. In the same purport, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges is justifiable and there is no error of law by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, as alleged by the prosecutor.

Provided, That the defendant

1. The judgment of the court below

Defendant I also asserted this in the lower court.

The lower court determined that: (a) while the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Branch or individual on-site organization separately publishes a periodical in the form of newspaper; (b) the title or title of the instant field organization does not exist; (c) the title or title of the instant field organization is not specified as a “on-site organization newsletter”, “on-site organization joint signature”, and “on-site organization joint bulletin”; (d) whenever there is no fixed issue date at that time, there is no other issue; (b) the “on-site organization chairperson” expressed as an issuer is not a permanent organization; and (c) there is no independent office, nor regularly gather on a fixed date; and (c) the instant field organization’s joint incentive was published on April 6, 2016, which did not constitute a “on-site organization newsletter”, and that it does not constitute a “on-site organization newsletter” and “on-site organization’s behalf of the Defendant’s candidate and his family members,” and that it does not constitute a “on-site organization’s grounds that it did not directly assert the contents of the above public election law, and did not constitute a specific form of evidence.

2. The judgment of this Court

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the relevant provisions of the Public Official Election Act and its purport and internal use, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on social rules, etc. as a ground for excluding the violation of the prohibition of distributing documents by legitimate means under the Public Official Election Act, or the violation of the prohibition of distributing documents by unlawful means. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

II. Judgment on the argument on unreasonable sentencing

1. Reasons for sentencing common election crimes; and

An election, which is the procedure for a national who is the sovereignty of the State, is the basis for the realization of the sovereignty and democracy, and thus, must be fair in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures. In principle, the Public Official Election Act guarantees the freedom of election campaigns, while preventing election campaigns, and strictly regulating in order to ensure fairness in the election process. Considering the institutional purport of such public office elections, acts of using facilities other than an election campaign office or election campaign liaison office as provided by the Act for election campaigns, acts of conducting election campaigns by means other than those provided by the Act prior to the election campaign period, acts of providing allowances, actual expenses, money, or other benefits other than those provided by the Act, acts of distributing printed matters that include the contents of supporting a specific candidate in order to prevent the free choice of the people, and ultimately infringe on the transparency and fairness of public office elections, and ultimately, such acts cannot be easily subject to punishment for such crime.

2. Defendant C, F

The Defendants were punished for committing the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, and again committed the instant crime. The instant telephone campaign was planned by Defendant C’s instruction and overall manager, who is the 2 district responsible manager, and the election campaign workers belonging to the 2 district unit, including Defendant F, and the instant one-person demonstration was conducted over a planned and organized period against many unspecified persons under the initiative of the fleet headquarters. The Defendants participated in and repeatedly committed the crime, and Defendant F was not easy to commit the Defendants in that they participated in the crime of using similar agencies.

However, Defendant F’s crime of using a similar agency is limited to the use of existing facilities, and the Defendants’ telephone election campaign was carried out for a short period of time for the purpose of directly dealing with the voting for the simplification of inventive step candidates, and through a single-person demonstration, Defendant F did not directly appeal Defendant A’s support, or did not express a direct intention to promote the abortion by specifying the counter candidates.

In full view of these circumstances, in full view of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, form of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and pleadings, and the fact that there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is deemed to be unreasonable because it is too heavy and too heavy. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s arguments are without merit.

3. Defendant D, E

Defendant D had been punished for committing the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act and the Political Funds Act, but again committed the instant crime. Defendant E, as a core election campaign worker at the Agricultural and Fishing Villages 2 Dong, took charge of the instant crime of using the private organization, was involved in the instant telephone election campaign, and Defendant D took charge of the instant telephone election campaign, taking charge of the overall status of the election campaign workers belonging to the district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2 district 2, and actively participated in the crime of using a similar organization. Defendant D actively participated in the instant

However, Defendant E is an initial crime, and the Defendants’ crime of using a similar agency is limited to the use of the existing facilities, and the party to the telephone prior election campaign is only six persons, and was carried out for a short period for the direct purpose of a single-person demonstration, with the aim of a single-person demonstration, and there was no direct objection to Defendant A’s support or for the purpose of promoting the abortion by specifying the counter candidates.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, type of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the present case’s records and arguments, and the fact that there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is unreasonable because it is too heavy and too heavy. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

The Defendants’ liability of taking part in the crime of using the similar agency of this case is not easy.

However, the defendants are the first offender, and there are some of the circumstances of the participation in the crime as volunteers under the direction of the defendant E, and the period of the crime is relatively short.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, type of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions and new circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the appellate trial, including the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendants cannot be determined as inappropriate because it is too heavy and too heavy. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

The crime of distributing documents by the unlawful method committed by the Defendant was committed on April 6, 2016 when the election day was very imminent, and distributed printed matter to the majority of the members from 25,100. The contents directly appeal to Defendant A’s support is not less than that of the crime. The Defendant, in collusion with J and Busan, committed the crime of purchasing and inducing for understanding that he/she provided the democratic field office of his/her own chairman to the election campaign workers who have supported the election of Defendant A without compensation, so it is inevitable to punish them corresponding to this.

However, the Defendant did not have any record of being punished for committing a crime in violation of the Public Official Election Act, and the crime of buying and inducing understanding of the instant case is not a significant profit because the Defendant provided the office to the college students who supported Busan without compensation.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, form of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., and the fact that there is no new circumstance to change the lower court’s punishment in the records and pleadings, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable and unfair. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

6. Defendant J

The defendant, who has supported the election of the defendant A in Busan, led the undergraduate election campaign workers who provided a democratic field office free of charge, and led to the crime of inducing understanding, and the crime of prior election campaign in the form of prior election campaign publicity before the work is promoted is not easy.

However, there is no record that the defendant was punished for committing the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act, and there is no significant benefit from the purchase and the crime of inducing understanding, and there is no degree of violation in that the defendant's direct appeal to the support of the defendant A through the public relations campaign prior to his work, or did not express the direct intention to promote the defeat by specifying the counter candidate.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, form of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., and the fact that there is no new circumstance to change the lower court’s punishment in the records and pleadings, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable and unfair. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

7. Defendant K

The Defendant, while conducting an election campaign for Defendant A, received benefits equivalent to accommodation expenses by using a democratic field office without compensation.

However, there is no record that the defendant was punished for committing a crime in violation of the Public Official Election Act, and in the course of volunteer service as university students, it seems that the defendant was caused to commit a crime according to the recommendation of the defendant J, etc. and there is no significant

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, form of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., and the fact that there is no new circumstance to change the lower court’s punishment in the records and pleadings, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable and unfair. The Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

I. Conclusion

1. Since the appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant A, among the non-guilty parts against Defendant A, is well-grounded, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of a similar agency and the appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant A against Defendant A is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against Defendant B, the guilty part against Defendant A, and the part against Defendant A, and the part against the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of a similar agency under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below which found the guilty part of the non-guilty part of the judgment of the judgment of the court below which found the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of a similar agency, should be sentenced to a single sentence since it cannot maintain the guilty part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below since it constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act). The following decision is followed after the pleading (as seen earlier, the prosecutor's application for changes in indictment was permitted to add the facts that Defendants independently used a similar agency.

2. The appeal filed by Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, and the prosecutor’s appeal against the above Defendants, and the appeal by the prosecutor as to the remainder other than the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of similar agency, is without merit. Thus, each of the appeals is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the defendant A appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, but all of the appeals are without merit as seen above. However, the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant A as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of similar agency among the acquittal portion against the defendant A is recognized as reasonable, and the guilty portion against the defendant A, which is concurrent with this part, is also reversed, and the new single sentence is determined. Thus, even if the appeal against the guilty portion of the defendant A is without merit, as long as it is reversed at the time of the reverse part, the appeal by the defendant A is not dismissed in the order).

[Grounds for the Judgment rendered by Defendant A or B]

Criminal facts

1. Use of similar institution (Defendant A and B);

Defendant A leased the same office on February 17, 2015 under his name, and Defendant B, after a month from the above lease agreement, allowed the lessor to use the above empty store as the "Women's office" office with the permission of the tenant's free use of the 'Dong' office from the lessor's office, and the above 'Dong' office was located * the office registered as the consumer in the electricity of Korea from the second floor to the 'Dong' office, and the management expenses of the 'Women' office' was sent to the 'Dong' office to the 'Dong' office, and the 'Dong' office was posted to the 'Dong' office, and the 'Dong' office was mainly used as the place of various gatherings, meetings and events, and the 'Dong' office' and 'M' office related to the 'Dong' office were identical with and similar to the 'Dong' office'.

No person, other than an election campaign office or election campaign liaison office, shall newly establish or install any institution, organization, organization, or facility similar thereto, or use any existing institution, body, organization, organization, or facility, regardless of the name of the election promotion committee, supporters' association research institute, counseling center, resting place, etc. on behalf of a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate.

Nevertheless, the Defendants and D, E, F, G, and H share the situation, schedule, method, etc. of election campaign in two districts of the global line with each other at any time through a plenary session in the two districts of the main line, such as the plenary session and the terrestrial line, and the Defendant A instructed to use the office of the election campaign office, election campaign liaison office, and women’s meeting as similar to that of the election campaign office, the election campaign office, the election campaign liaison office, and the election campaign in the office of the Defendant B assisting the Defendant A as the election campaign manager, and the election campaign in the office of the women’s meeting, and the office of the D, E, F, G, and H used the office of the election campaign and the election campaign office of the women’s meeting as similar to the election campaign office, the election campaign office of the election campaign office and the election campaign liaison office.

Accordingly, Defendants and D, E, F, G, and H shall, from the 20th election of the National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea to get Defendant A to be elected, together with election campaign workers belonging to M, etc. who work in two districts, during the election campaign period from February 18, 2016 to April 7 of the same year (G from March 18, 2016 to April 7, 2016; H from March 22, 2016 to April 7, 2016 to the election campaign office; Defendant A shall have access to the election campaign office, election campaign liaison office, etc.; Defendant B shall have a general manager of the election campaign office; Defendant B shall have access to the election campaign office, election campaign campaign liaison office, etc.; Defendant B shall have a front-time election campaign campaign manager; Defendant B shall have a front-time election campaign manager's campaign liaison office, etc.; Defendant B shall have a front-time election campaign liaison office, etc.; and shall have a front-time election campaign liaison office or elector's.

As a result, Defendants and D, E, F, G, and H in collusion with the election campaign workers belonging to the 20th National Assembly members of M et al. used the office of the 20th National Assembly members' 'Dong' and ' Women's Association' for Defendant A as facilities similar to the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office to carry out election campaign or other election affairs. 2. Prior election campaign (Defendant A)

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Public Official Election Act, no one shall conduct an election campaign by using tools for propaganda facilities or various printed matters, broadcasting, newspapers, news communications, magazines, other publications, campaign meetings, debate meetings, debate meetings, native folks meetings, alumni meetings, neighbors' meetings, information and communications, the establishment of an election campaign organization or private organization, door-to-door visits and other methods prior to the election campaign period.

On the other hand, a preliminary candidate may conduct an election campaign prescribed in the Public Official Election Act, such as support and lake acts using telephones prior to the election campaign period, but in such cases, an election campaign is carried out by a person who is not a preliminary candidate to take part in an

Defendant, C, D, F, J, etc.***** Party and ** Party and *** Party of the Party by forming and expanding public opinion against the candidate affiliated with the Party, resulting in a decline in their support and instead of the Defendant’s awareness and support, to raise the possibility of election of Defendant in the election of the 20th National Assembly member of the 20th National Assembly, it was necessary to conduct an election campaign in the form of one person demonstration, one person campaign prior to the attendance at work, and two-way campaign (camp) by using political materials to attract public opinion unfavorable to the Party.

Accordingly, the defendant, along with modern automobile association members, etc. who hold the position of the person related to the headquarters, the election campaign workers belonging to the regional headquarters, and the democratic site, divide their roles into one person's own roles and take overall control of the election campaign at the center level, such as one person's own activities, one person's campaign, one person's attendance campaign, and one person's systematic election campaign prior to street publicity, and one person's campaign group members, such as C, D, F, etc., shall conduct an election campaign in the form of one person's demonstration, and the persons related to the "on-site democracy, such as J and N N, etc." shall conduct an election campaign in the form of one person's own campaign, and the persons related to the "on-site democracy such as K and N, etc." in the form of election campaign, K, N, university students' election campaign members, etc. who belong to the defendant and district 2 district, have worn at uniforms symbolizing the defendant and expressed his opposite intention to the candidate** in the form of election campaign in the way of street publicity** in the opposite to the candidate's.

(a) A preliminary election campaign in the form of a one demonstration;

On February 22, 2016, at around 07:00, C took the form of c, D, F, and so on, the Defendant: (a) before the Home Packer, which is a rescue device to criticize the current government and the dominium in the northwest-gu, U.S.; (b) 3 years of election campaign; (c) in line with the words "P.P. peace in lieu of war"; and (d) in line with the visual meaning of the above phrases, the Defendant used the c, "S., P., P. C, P., and P., I will change the form of the c, "S., P., P., P. and P., P. P., the Defendant, from time to time, using the c, "S., P., P. P. P., P. P. P. P. M., I, I, I, and I, I would like to share the 1 set of the above c, 1,000 p.

Accordingly, in collusion with C, D, F, etc., the Defendant carried out an election campaign for the Defendant prior to the election campaign period (from March 31, 2016 to April 12, 2016), in collusion with C, D, F, etc.

(b) Pre-election campaigns in the form of attendance before publicity;

1) Pre-election campaigns dated March 7, 2016

On March 7, 2016, the Defendant, along with his/her modern vehicle employees from around 06:0 to around 08:00, and before his/her modern vehicle Ulsan Factory in Ulsan-dong, the Defendant, in contact with J in advance, discussed before his/her work promotion before the work promotion, and followed up the so-called "3 years of Park Jong-young, opposition to labor, and peace in lieu of war". The Defendant’s side, “three years of Park Jong-young, 3 years of work opening, and peace instead of war,” the Defendant’s name tag, referring to the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the 'or 'the 'the 's new 'the 's 's 's '.

Accordingly, the Defendant conducted an election campaign for the Defendant prior to the election campaign period (from March 31, 2016 to April 12, 2016) in collusion with J and person in poor name.

2) Pre-election campaigns dated March 8, 2016

On March 8, 2016, the Defendant, along with N of the Secretariat N of the Democratic Site N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the M of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the N of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M of the M

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with N and N, carried out an election campaign for the Defendant prior to the election campaign period (from March 31, 2016 to April 12, 2016).

(c) Advance election campaigns in the form of a street publicity campaign;

The Defendant’s fleet headquarters decided the yellow color as the candidate’s symbol, and made the yellow wave enter common heading of the election campaign group as a common uniform. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant was selected as a so-called “one-called “one-right single candidate” with the preliminary candidate for each and the preliminary candidate for each election. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant registered him as a candidate belonging to the North-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City on the 24th day of the same month *** a candidate who is a candidate belonging to the Party * 1:1 plenary session.

**** The Party proposes a 5th bill of labor reform, including expansion of the duty of temporary agency workers on September 16, 2015 and extension of the term of employment for fixed-term workers, etc.**** The issue of ‘labor reform' has continued political and social controversy since December 2015, and the defendant explicitly expressed his opposition to the above labor reform.

At around 16:00 on March 27, 2016, N et al. took place with two district election campaign workers, N in the Secretariat N in the Democratic Site, N in the Busan District University's mobilization and name poor, N et al., and N et al. al., with the sign of a yellow election campaign in the vicinity of the steel path distance in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., and with the sign of a yellow election campaign in the three-year long-term, "economic network-friendly regime", "Simbling in the three-year long-term," "Simbling in the economy-friendly regime", "Simbling in the middle of 1,208," "Simbbling in the middle of 1,208," "Simbling in the middle of 3 years of gambling," "Simbling in the middle of the election campaign or in the middle of the election campaign to share it with the candidate's new wage and free dismissal."

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with N and N, carried out an election campaign for the Defendant prior to the election campaign period (from March 31, 2016 to April 12, 2016).

Summary of Evidence

[Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act at the Time of Sales]

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

○ Use of a similar institution: Article 255(1)13 and Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(Selection of Fines)

The occupation of each advance election campaign: Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B

Article 255(1)13 and Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

Use of the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (use of a similar institution with the largest punishment)

Aggravation of concurrent crimes for the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: A fine not exceeding nine million won;

(b) Defendant B: A fine not exceeding six million won;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria; and

A. Defendant A

1) Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the use of similar institutions

Scope of ○ Recommendation: Illegal Election Campaign in Violation of Election Campaign Period > Form 2 (Violation of Election Campaign Method)

special aggravation (one million won to six million won)

○ Special aggravated person: A previous conviction (including fine) in the case of stuffing on the election day;

2) A violation of the Public Official Election Act due to one-person demonstration’s prior election campaign

○ Scope of Recommendations: Type 1 (Violation of Election Campaign Period) for illegal election campaigns in violation of the Election Campaign Period.

○ Special mitigation (Aggravated) : Where the degree of violation of the election campaign method is insignificant (a person to be mitigated) / preference

(1) In the event that it is imminent on any day, a planned or organized crime, an unspecified, or a large number of others

criminal records of the same kind, if they were committed repeatedly throughout a considerable period of time;

3) Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the prior election campaign prior to each attendance campaign and on the street publicity campaign.

○ Scope of Recommendations: Type 1 (Violation of Election Campaign Period) for an election campaign in violation of Article 1.

special aggravation (1 million won to 4.5 million won)

○ Special aggravated person: For unspecified or many other parties, in case of gambling on the election day;

criminal records of the same kind (including fines), if they have been committed repeatedly for a considerable period of time;

4) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: KRW 1 million to KRW 9750,000.

B. Defendant B

Scope of ○ Recommendation: Illegal Election Campaign in Violation of Election Campaign Period

Aggravation (1 million won to 4 million won)

○ Special aggravated person: Where he/she stays on the election day;

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A

As a result of the election of the National Assembly member of Ulsan Metropolitan City, the Defendant obtained 5,621 votes (61.5%) out of 90,452 marks of the valid votes of 90,452, and was elected as the other candidate (leap**:34,831 marks, 38.5%) and 20,790 marks (in the case of the Non-Party 2 consent, the Defendant obtained 8,478 marks in the valid votes of 14,344 marks, the other candidate obtained 5,866 marks, and the average obtained votes of each Defendant did not reach 59.1%, and the above average obtained votes rate). In light of these, it does not seem that the Defendant’s criminal act of this case affected the conclusion of the election of this case, that is, the result of the election of this case.

However, an election is a system that serves as the basis for the realization of national sovereignty and democracy, and it is more important to ensure fairness in the election process. It is a value that our citizens close with experience through history. The crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the use of the similar agency of this case is an election campaign members belonging to two districts, such as E, etc., and even if he knows that the defendant used the office for election campaign for the purpose of election campaign, he/she is permitted to use the office for the purpose of election campaign, and the crime is heavy in light of the period of use, the contents and degree of use, and the degree of understanding of the defendant as to the result of the use. Since the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act by an election campaign such as one-person, etc. was committed under the direction of the defendant, it is inevitable for him/her to use it for his/her election campaign in the form of active and planned manner, and it is not easy that the defendant has already been punished for the purpose of election campaign in this case, even if he/she had been punished for more than three times.

In addition to these circumstances, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, the degree of understanding of the defendant's result of the crime in this case, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee shall be determined as ordered.

B. Defendant B

The crime of this case is not against the quality of the defendant's crime in collusion with A's election campaign manager and the chairperson of the operation committee of accompanying company, who used the accompanying office, etc. for election campaign in collusion with the two election campaign workers belonging to E, etc.

However, there was no record that the defendant was punished for committing a crime in violation of the Public Official Election Act, and there was no accompanying office for election campaign purposes, but only use it.

In addition to these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, form of participation in a crime, means and consequence, circumstances after committing a crime, equity with other Defendants, etc., and the conditions of all kinds of sentencing that are different in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered.

J. decoration (Presiding Judge)

Quascis

gender; and

1) An organization established by Defendant A, claiming a community as a community of residents of the residents of the North Northern-gu, Ulsan-gu, and claiming a village page, etc.

It is referred to as "working"; hereinafter referred to as "working".

2) It is called the “Malcheon Women’s Association” belonging to the Ulsan Women’s Association; hereinafter referred to as the “Malcheon Women’s Association”).

(3) Article 89 (Prohibition of Establishment of Similar Institutions) (1) Anyone shall be an election campaign office, election campaign liaison office, or election campaign organization under Article 61 (1) and (2).

For a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate, an election promotion committee, a supporters' association, a research institute, a counseling center, or a rest place;

A new establishment or installation of a similar institution, organization, organization, or facility, regardless of its name;

No public official, organization, organization, or facility shall be used: Provided, That one election campaign office established in a candidate or preliminary candidate;

Organization for countermeasures and [the same shall not apply to supporters' associations under the Political Funds Act.]

4) The prosecutor shall maintain this part of the facts charged at the trial and shall accompany Defendant A and B, respectively, and the Women’s Association at the preliminary hearing.

Only visiting an office to visit the office and stay at any time in the office of the Dong and Women's Association, such as encouragement of the cause of election campaign E, etc.

(1) add the facts charged that the accompanying and female conference office was used as facilities similar to the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office;

This Court approved the amendment of the indictment. This part of the indictment is the primary charge as set forth below.

As long as the prosecutor's appeal against this case is accepted and judged guilty, it is judged otherwise as to the preliminary charges added at the trial.

subsection (b) of this section.

(v) Evidence duly adopted and examined in the original trial and the trial court that does not separately specify evidence among facts admitted below.

recognized by these.

6) The above documents need to be submitted as much as “I wish to make up for the said documents as I will know about the 2 core chains (the third core of these documents will be prepared as I would know).”

The contents of the apartment building of the farm site 2, the number of households, etc. are also stated in the Do table (Investigation Records 1,769 pages).

Article 254 (Violation of Election Campaign Period) (2) Other publicity facilities and use than methods prescribed by this Act prior to the election campaign period.

The Gu or various printed materials, broadcasting, newspapers, news communications, magazines, other publications, campaign meetings, meetings for political views, discussions, and the direction of discussions;

Righting, alumni meetings, neighborhood meetings, other meetings, information and communications, the establishment of an election campaign organization or private organization, door-to-door visits, and other rooms;

Any person who conducts an election campaign under the Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding four million won.

8) Following the title "5 measures and plans to see and see the circumstances" in the above data, '2. Public seal monying the plate.

The institution of issues: various methods of political issues and issues such as Gong Domology, political intervention of re-presidentials, extreme polarization, easy dismissal, etc.;

There is a defect in writing, name, democratic labor union, public relations materials, or one-person demonstration).

List of Offenses 1

- Description omitted