beta
Text
The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding, the violation of the rules of evidence) Defendant B’s defense counsel at the court of the trial on June 5, 2020, which was submitted after the closing of argument at the court of the trial, stated in the summary of the oral argument on June 5, 2020. (1) Even though Defendant B stated in the facts of crime as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below for public interest irrelevant to the election without the awareness that it is false, the court below found Defendant B guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act in the above case. (2) The court below’s
However, this is not a legitimate ground for appeal since it was filed after the lapse of the grounds for appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Thus, the argument of unfair sentencing in the above summary of argument is not separately determined, and the argument of legal principles is limited
The lower court determined that the Defendants published false facts to the effect that “H received money with the draft of information” with respect to G’s punishment H, which the Defendants want to become D candidates in the local election of 2018 as stated in the holding of the lower judgment, based on the date of recording L’s statement and L’s sound recording as evidence.
However, the Defendants merely stated that Nungun received money as “H information cost” and did not mean that H received direct information cost.
L also did not participate in the conversation at the time of recording the above recording file, so the above recording file cannot be considered as evidence of guilt because it constitutes illegally collected evidence.
In addition, Defendant A listens to the monetary content of Nonindicted Party T and AA, and Defendant B believed the suspicion of Defendant A to be true. As such, there was a considerable reason to believe that the Defendants are the truth that “the Defendants received money from H in return for information” was true.
Nevertheless, the court below, however, has accepted the above evidence as it is and found guilty of the facts charged, and such judgment of the court below is just.