Defendant

Enforcement Decree ( Indictment, Public Trial)

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

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

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The defendant, who was in office as the head of ○○ Military Fisheries Cooperatives, was elected on March 11, 2015 after going through an election for the head of the above partnership.

The above election is an election implemented on August 1, 2014 in accordance with the Act on Election of Public Organizations, etc., and the election commission manages the preparation of the electoral register and other election procedures, but in relation to the preparation of the electoral register, the electoral register can be finalized following the inspection of the electoral register and the procedure for raising an objection.

Meanwhile, according to the Act on Entrusted Elections by Public Organizations, Etc. (Article 15), the Regulations on Entrusted Elections by Public Organizations, etc. (Article 7), the Fisheries Cooperatives Act (Article 31), and the Articles of Incorporation of ○○ Military Fisheries Cooperatives (Article 25) a cooperative is obligated to investigate whether it is qualified as a cooperative member and to arrange a list of union members and prepare an electoral register accordingly. The Defendant, as the head of ○○ Military Fisheries Cooperatives, was aware of the fact that he/she received an official document from the Election Commission and the Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives to February 2015 to the effect that the registration of an electoral register of a disqualified person is invalid on several occasions, and thus, he/she had such obligation.

Therefore, the Defendant, a person in charge of preparing the electoral register of a cooperative, was obligated to conduct a fact-finding survey on whether a person is qualified as a cooperative member before submitting the electoral register to the election commission, determine the eligibility for the cooperative member through a resolution of the board of directors, and prepare the electoral register based on the list of cooperative members prepared in accordance with the decision. Nevertheless, the Defendant, among the persons on the list of cooperative members managed by the cooperative, 76 persons listed in the attached crime list, including Nonindicted 7, etc., who belong to the △△△△△△○ fishing village fraternity, are actually not engaged in fisheries or reside outside the ○○○○○○○ City and was well aware of the fact that he/she is disqualified as a cooperative member, sent the electoral register to the ○○○ election commission on February 24, 2015, which

As a result, the Defendant intentionally entered false information about the elector in the electoral register as a person related to preparation of the electoral register.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 6

1. Each investigation report (a document attached to the 000 election commission’s letter of decision to submit documents, such as a list of disqualified association members; a document attached to a list of association members; a document attached to the list of association members’ names; a document attached to the articles of association for the qualification, etc. of association members; a document attached to “request to increase the membership of association members and to submit the results of maintenance of association members; a document attached to a written request to submit the results of maintenance of association members’ qualifications; a document attached to a written request to submit a written request for the delegation agreement of 00/Gun cooperative; a document verifying whether to submit voting; a document verifying whether to submit voting; a copy of Non-Party 7 telephone statement of non-qualified association members; a copy of Non-Party 2 suspect’s suspect Nonindicted 9 telephone statement hearing; a copy of the written approval of the electoral register submitted on the list of non-qualified association members; a copy of the written approval submitted on the list of the non-qualified association members; and a telephone statement hearing, etc. made to 76 persons who exchanged

[Defendant and defense counsel asserted to the effect that there was no intention since the withdrawal does not take effect unless a resolution of the board of directors is adopted even if there was a reason to lose the qualification of a member, it cannot be arbitrarily excluded from the list of members, and the defendant could not know the reason for loss

However, the following circumstances acknowledged based on each of the above evidence, i.e., the defendant, as the president of a cooperative, is obligated to convene a board of directors to examine whether the grounds for losing the eligibility of a member under the relevant statutes and the provisions of the articles of association of the cooperative, and to arrange the list of members by convening a board of directors. In a case where there is doubt as to whether a member is disqualified, the defendant is obligated to convene a board of directors through a fact-finding survey, and to convene a board of directors to determine the eligibility through a resolution of the board of directors and exclude the requirement from the list of members if there is a reason for losing the eligibility of a member. Such obligation was well known through the process of inspecting and approving each official document posted by the election commission and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives. Since the defendant was 76 persons listed in the annexed list of crimes and cell phone calls from time to time, it is reasonable to view that he was well aware of the existence of the reason for losing the eligibility of a member. However, in light of the fact-finding survey, at least the defendant is fully guilty.

The defendant and defense counsel's assertion against this cannot be accepted.

1. Relevant laws and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Article 63(2) of the Act on Entrusted Elections of Public Organizations, etc., Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant contributed to the normalization of the management of the association of this case, the fact that the Defendant has no particular criminal record except for those subject to a fine once due to another type of crime, and that the Defendant reflects the mistake.

However, in the election of the head of the association of this case, even though the defendant was elected as the head of the association due to the difference between the deceased-ray and the fire, 76 persons who were false voters were elected as the head of the association, and even according to the defendant's assertion, 18 persons among the 76 persons were actually present in the actual voting. Meanwhile, even if the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that 47 persons among the above 76 persons were to be members of the association ex post facto, the defendant and the defense counsel did not have the right to vote retroactively at the time of the above election, and even if so, 8 persons (attached Table 2, 3, 22, 50, 51, 57, 58, 61) from among the persons who participated in the election from the above 76 persons, among those who participated in the election, still failed to recover even after following the defendant's assertion, and therefore, the crime of this case is unreasonable in light of the fact that the fairness of the election cannot be ruled to be invalidated.

Specifically, in determining punishment, various sentencing factors indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the crime, are considered in addition to the above circumstances.

[Attachment]

Judge Han Sung-soo