logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.6.27.선고 2017노238 판결
가.공직선거법위반나.정치자금법위반다.증거은닉
Cases

2017No238 A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

B. Violation of the Political Funds Act

(c) Concealment of evidence;

Defendant

1. A. B.

2. A. B

3.(a)

Appellant

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendants)

Prosecutor

Gangwon-gu (Courtroom) and west-gu (Courtroom)

Defense Counsel

Attorney J, DK (for all defendants):

The judgment below

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2016Gohap383 Decided January 5, 2017

Imposition of Judgment

June 27, 2017

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won. Where Defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

The penalty of KRW 5,650,000 shall be collected from the defendant A. The order of provisional payment of the fine and the amount equivalent to the penalty shall be issued to the defendant A.

2. All appeals filed by Defendant B and C and prosecutor against the above Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to each violation of the Public Official Election Act

A) The receipt of money and valuables related to the election campaign

Defendant A’s borrowing of money from N for the purpose of using it for daily expenses is not money or goods provided in connection with the election campaign. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby finding Defendant A to have received money or goods from N in connection with the election campaign.

B) The excessive election expenses in the portion of the election expenses paid are the expenses that were paid to the elected person after the election is completed, and thus, the election expenses should be excluded. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby recognizing that the aggregate of the election expenses paid by the M election campaign office and the restricted amount of election expenses paid and the restricted amount of election expenses publicly announced, including the above expenses, exceeds 1/200 of the restricted amount of election expenses paid by the M election campaign office on March 23, 2016.

2) misunderstanding of facts as to each violation of the Political Funds Act

A) Although Defendant A’s portion of election expenses spent without going through the reported deposit account was recognized as paying KRW 31,184,385 with the transmission cost of text messages related to the election campaign, there was no fact of conspiracy with Defendant A. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby recognizing the public relations with Defendant A and0.

B) Defendant A, without knowing the details of the false entry into a false entry into the document evidencing election expenses, calculated the amount of goods to be paid to R on the basis of the remaining documents and the guide on the preservation of election expenses, etc., and paid KRW 8,418,750 as of April 21, 2016. On April 23, 2016, Defendant A requested the issuance of a tax invoice for KRW 34,418,750, which is the total amount paid to R from the election campaign. There was no fact that Defendant A requested the R to make a false entry into a written estimate or tax invoice. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant A instigated Defendant A to make a false entry into a written estimate or tax invoice on the R side.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant A (the imprisonment of 8 months for each crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, the imprisonment of 1-B as stated in the judgment of the court below, the imprisonment of 2 months for each crime, the suspended execution of 2 years for each crime, and the additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair form of punishment)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (the fine of KRW 3 million for the crime of Section 2-A in the original judgment, the fine of KRW 2-B in the judgment of the court below for the crime of Section 2-B in the original judgment, and the fine of KRW 2-B in the probation, one year in the suspended execution, and the additional collection)

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Although Defendant C did not receive money from Defendant C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant C received KRW 1 million in connection with the election campaign.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (the penalty of KRW 3 million, the penalty of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

(d) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to Defendant A)

A) misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act according to the "receiving money or goods related to election campaigns"

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even if Defendant A was granted KRW 21.6 million from Defendant A for the use of the cost of sending text messages, etc., the lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part on the ground that it was impossible to recognize the fact that Defendant A received the cost of transmitting text messages from Defendant A0 due to misconception of the fact.

B) The misapprehension of the legal principle as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the "excess disbursement of election expenses" and the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the "election expenses not covered by the reported deposit account"

Although election expenses disbursement without going through a reported deposit account, for the purpose of transmitting election campaign letters, was completed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which acquitted the Defendant of this part, on the ground that the amount returned by the company transmitting election campaign letters should be excluded from the excessive disbursement of election expenses and the amount of election expenses disbursement not going through the deposit account reported.

C) The misapprehension of the legal principle as to the violation of the Political Fund Act by the "political fund donation" (the part concerning the revocation of provisional decision to permit changes in indictment)

The first charge is that “the Defendant violated the Political Funds Act by remitting KRW 36.1 million to M candidate’s election campaign text transmission cost without going through an account reported from March to April, 2016.” The additional charge is that “the Defendant donated political funds by remitting KRW 26.1 million to M candidate’s election campaign text transmission cost from March to April, 2016.” The two charges are the same factual basis and are in a commercial competition relationship. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby cancelling the decision to permit changes in the indictment with respect to this part.

2) As to the defendant's unreasonable sentencing (as to the defendant)

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The part against Defendant A

A. Ex officio determination

1) We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the Prosecutor A.

On the premise that the election expenses disbursement that did not go through the deposit account as stated in Paragraph (1) of Article 1-B of the decision of the court below are in a mutually competitive relationship with the facts constituting the violation of the Political Funds Act, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the facts charged in violation of the Political Funds Act pursuant to the "illegal Acceptance of Political Funds" as stated in Paragraph (2) of the same Article (additional name of the crime: the above half of the Political Funds Act, Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act, Article 40(2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 40(2) of the Criminal Act), and this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment (as long as the court below accepted the application for the amendment of the indictment at the trial as above, it is not hard to judge the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of

On the other hand, as seen below, the facts charged of violating the Political Fund Act pursuant to the above "misappropriation of political funds" are found guilty. As such, the additionally charged facts should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the remaining facts charged and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A cannot be maintained as it is.

2) Additional charges: Violation of the Political Funds Act pursuant to the 'misappropriation of political funds'

No one shall contribute or receive any political fund by means other than those provided for in the Political Funds Act.

Defendant A, around March 12, 2016, remitted KRW 1,700,00 from the Nonghyup Bank located in 264, the amount of KRW 1,70,000 to the cost of transmitting text messages of the candidates for M, as indicated in [Attachment Table 2] Nos. 1 through 7, 11, 13, and 14 from that time until April 12, 2016, Defendant A, as indicated in [Attachment Table 2] Nos. 1 through 7, 11, 13, and 14, remitted the total amount of KRW 21,60,000 to the cost of transmitting text messagess of the candidates for M to contribute the political funds of the candidates for M

B. Determination on the grounds for appeal

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, Defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in the original trial, and prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged in the original trial

1) As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Defendant A also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal under this part of the judgment of the court below. The court below rejected the above assertion in detail, with the following reasons: “1. Whether the money and valuables received as stated in Section 1(a) of the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below is related to election campaign or not, or not, the money and valuables received by Defendant A as stated in Section 1(a) of the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below.

In light of the facts admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant A received the money and valuables received from N as stated in Article 1-A (1) of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below, and the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just. The statement by the witness N of the party to the trial does not interfere with the acknowledgement of the facts constituting the crime, and there is no other evidence to reverse it.

Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

B) Defendant A argued to the same effect as the reasons for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail, with the detailed statement on the issues under the title “whether or not Defendant A paid election expenses in excess of 1/200 or more of the restricted amount of election expenses publicly announced by Defendant A and his defense counsel in collusion with 0 et al.” in the column of “determination on the argument of Defendant A and his defense counsel”. Examining the above judgment of the lower court in a consistent with the record and closely, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justified, and it is sufficiently acceptable, and even if all evidence submitted by the defense counsel, such as the written evidence Nos. 13 and 15 of the evidence submitted by the defense counsel and video, etc. up to the trial, it does not interfere with this part of the crime and there is no other evidence to reverse this. Therefore, this part of the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

C) Violation of the Political Funds Act pursuant to the 'election expense expenditure not via the reported deposit account'

Defendant A argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by comparing the above judgment of the court below with the records, under the title "whether or not the defendant conspireds to disburse election expenses publicly announced by the defendant in collusion with 0 et al. without going through the reported deposit account."

The judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the defendant A. Therefore, this part of the defendant A's assertion cannot be accepted.

D) Defendant A also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title "4. The judgment of the court below as to the argument of Defendant A and the defense counsel". In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no evidence to support this part of the facts charged even if all evidence submitted by the defense counsel, including the statement of No. 14 and No. 16 of the evidence submitted by the defense counsel, were collected up to the trial. Accordingly, this part of the judgment of the court below and there is no evidence to support this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to support this.

2) As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Violation of the Public Official Election Act under the "receiving money and valuables related to election campaign"

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

From March 5, 2016 to April 11, 2016, Defendant A received total of KRW 27,250,000 as election campaign activity expenses and publicity text messages transmission expenses, and received money and valuables in connection with M’s election campaign, as stated in the list of crimes (1) from N, a person in charge of the organization management of the area in which M was not reported, and from 0, a person in charge of accounting, as an election campaign worker in charge of M’s non-reported and new regional organization management as an election campaign worker.

(2) Summary of the judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charges on this part of the facts charged (excluding the portion acknowledged as a crime, 5650,000 won) on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not prove that Defendant A had received expenses for election campaign activities, and there are doubtful circumstances that all of the expenses for transmitting promotional text messages are not spent in cash separately managed at M election campaign office. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant A received expenses for transmitting promotional text messages from Defendant A or N solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts.

(A) There is no direct evidence to prove that Defendant A had a certain amount of money in cash, and there is also the possibility that Defendant A may have prepared a disbursement statement by directly or partially arranging the cost of transmitting text messages in cash separately managed at the M election campaign office. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant A received the cost of transmitting text messages from Defendant 0 or N.

(B) Even if Defendant A was assumed to have received the cost of transmitting promotional text messages from Defendant A and N in cash, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant A was not a deceased person with deep knowledge for 0 or N, since it is difficult to deem that Defendant A had a judgment and discretion on the use of such money and valuables solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. Thus, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A received money and valuables.

(3) Judgment of this Court

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case reveals that the court below's determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the above determination of evidence is just and acceptable, and since the statement of extraction (not more than 1015 pages of investigation records) related to multi-locks seized from this judgment does not have any particular influence on the above judgment, it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the

B) Violation of the Public Official Election Act and violation of the Political Funds Act according to the "amounting to the reported deposit account" under the "amounting to the excessive disbursement of election expenses"

(1) The summary of each of the facts charged

(A) Defendant A used election expenses equivalent to KRW 36,100,000 in total, including the cost of transmitting text messages, etc. of M candidates’ public relations, as shown in the attached list of crimes (2), and disbursed election expenses exceeding 222,127,633 in total, which is the sum of KRW 186,027,63,00 in the deposit account reported for election expenses, as the total amount of KRW 186,02,127,633 in election expenses (violation of the Public Official Election Act).

(B) Defendant A, P, and Q do not go through the deposit account reported as shown in the separate sheet of crime (2) and remitted the total amount of KRW 36,100,000 to M’s public relations text messages transmission expenses, and instead spent election expenses without going through the deposit account reported (violation of Political Funds Act).

(2) Summary of the judgment of the court below

According to evidence, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charges on the following grounds: (a) up to April 12, 2016, the amount actually used to transmit text messages through the three telecom account in Defendant A’s name is KRW 11,745,218; (b) the amount actually used to transmit text messages through the three telecom account in M’s name is KRW 19,419,167; (c) the amount used to transmit public relations text messages is KRW 31,185,385; and (b) the amount deposited into the three telecom account is KRW 31,185,385 in total; and (c) the amount deposited into the three telecom account is not determined to be actually used to a certain extent; and (c) if the balance remains, the Defendant, etc. may request the return of the balance of the pre-paid telecom after the termination of the contract and actually, the Defendant, etc. was not guilty of the remainder of the charges charged on the grounds that the payment was made when sending text messages through the device.

(3) Judgment of this Court

In light of the evidence and records duly examined and adopted by the court below and the trial court, the court below's decision not guilty of the remainder of the charges except for the above 31,185,385 won is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor. Accordingly, the prosecutor's allegation in this part is not acceptable.

C. Sub-committee

A. As seen above, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds) is reversed ex officio, and all of the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, or the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (excluding the assertion of 'claiming the cancellation of

3. The part as to Defendant B and C

A. Defendant B not only received money or goods of KRW 1.5 million in relation to the election but also obstructed the investigation of the investigation agency by concealing the zero mobile phone, and it is inevitable to make a strict punishment corresponding to the criminal liability.

① The money and valuables received by Defendant B, who is a volunteer, has the characteristic of compensating actual expenses in connection with the election campaign; ② Defendant B had a close personal relationship with Defendant B, a person in charge of accounting of M candidates, as he was employed as a driver on the part of M candidates; and owing to such personal relationship, Defendant B appears to have caused the crime with respect to only one cell phone of this case to this Defendant B; ③ Defendant B has a confession and reflect on the part of the evidence concealment; ④ Defendant B has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In full view of the above unfavorable circumstances, including the above unfavorable circumstances, and favorable circumstances, the age, character and conduct, intelligence, and environment of the above defendant, the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as all the conditions of the argument and the records of this case, it is not recognized that each sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant B is too heavy or unreasonable. Accordingly, each of the arguments of unfair sentencing by the defendant B and the prosecutor cannot be accepted.

[On the other hand, Defendant B’s defense counsel asserted to the effect that “the amount of KRW 1.5 million received by Defendant B is not related to an election as a guard for ordinary vehicle driving,” but the statement of grounds for appeal does not contain the above contents, and it does not appear that such contents were asserted within the due period for submission of the grounds for appeal (the Defendant B and the defense counsel stated that “the Defendant appealed on the grounds of a 'du-type unjust act on the date of the first instance trial on the date of the first instance trial on the date of the appeal), and the above assertion cannot be deemed a legitimate grounds for appeal, and according to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as Defendant B’s prosecutor’s statement and prosecutor’s statement at each prosecutor’s office, and there is no other evidence to reverse it. Accordingly, the above argument cannot be accepted (it cannot be deemed that it can be judged ex officio on the grounds that the judgment affected the judgment).”

B. Judgment on the mistake of facts by Defendant C

Defendant C argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title "the judgment on the argument of Defendant C and the defense counsel".

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the trial court, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the evidence submitted by the defense counsel up to the trial court, such as the statement of No. 17 of the submission of counsel, etc., does not interfere with the recognition of the crime in this part of this case, and there is no other evidence to reverse this. Accordingly, the defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted. In light of the fact that the judgment of unfair sentencing on the defendant C and the prosecutor’s each of the defendant C does not reflect his mistake, and the prosecutor’s attitude at the time of the investigation, it is inevitable to punish the defendant C with strict punishment corresponding to his criminal liability.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the money and valuables received by the defendant C, who is a volunteer, is of a critical nature to election campaign, and that the defendant C has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In full view of the above unfavorable circumstances, including the above unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances, the age, character and conduct, intelligence, and environment of the above defendant, the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as all the conditions of the argument and the records of this case, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below to the defendant C is too heavy or unreasonable. Accordingly, each of the grounds for unfair sentencing by the defendant C and the prosecutor cannot be accepted.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, Defendant B and C’s allegation of grounds of appeal and the Prosecutor’s allegation of grounds of appeal against the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A is a ground for ex officio reversal, the decision on the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant A and the prosecutor is omitted, and pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against the defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds for appeal) among the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the appeal against the defendant B and C and the prosecutor against the above defendants is not justified, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The criminal facts of Defendant A, recognized by this court, are as shown in Defendant A’s column of 1.1-b. (1) of the judgment of the court below, with the exception that the part of 2.1-A.2 of the above 2.2-A. (2) of the judgment of the court below is added to the part of 5.1-2 of the judgment of the court below and the part of 7. (2) of the judgment of the court below as “(3)” and except that the 5.7-2 of the judgment of the court of the court below is used as “(3).” The summary of the evidence is as follows: the 8.16-2 report of the judgment of the court below as an investigation report; and the 1.16-2 of the judgment of the court below as stated in Defendant A’s statement of the court of first instance is added to “the summary of the evidence of the court of the court below’s judgment’s judgment’s judgment’s 1.1-2 of the defendant’s trial.”

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 230(1)7 and 4, 135(3) (main sentence) of the Public Official Election Act, Articles 258(1)1 and 122 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 49(2)3 and 36(2) of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the disbursement of election expenses that are not via the reported deposit account, including the disbursement of election expenses that are not via the reported deposit account), the main sentence of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (including the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign), Articles 49(2)6 and 39 of the Political Funds Act, Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act provides for the punishment to be imposed on the violation of the Political Funds Act pursuant to the "expenses for election expenses not going through the reported deposit account", the crimes of violation of the Political Funds Act pursuant to the "illegal acceptance or acceptance of political funds", and the punishment to be imposed on the violation of the Political Funds Act pursuant to the "illegal acceptance

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in Article 1-A (1) of the Judgment with the most severe punishment]

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Additional collection:

The proviso to Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that election expenses related to the grounds for sentencing are serious crimes that undermine the fairness of election. Defendant A, who was an election campaign manager, committed each of the instant crimes, and was punished for the same crime, even though around 10 years have passed since it was an election campaign manager. The punishment corresponding to the responsibility for such crimes is inevitable.

① However, Defendant A appears to receive money and valuables from the perspective of compensation for actual expenses incurred in election campaign; the amount of money received is not much significant; ② the amount of election expenses exceeding the restricted amount of election expenses is not much significant; ③ some of the circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes are considered; and (4) there are favorable circumstances such as having no record of criminal punishment for the last ten years.

In addition to the above unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances, the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are shown in the records and arguments of this case, and the fact that it is difficult to evaluate that the fairness and peace of the election are damaged to the extent that the election of M is to be invalidated in light of the nature of the crime in this case and the degree of illegality, etc., as stated in the text of this case.

The acquittal portion

○ Violation of the Public Official Election Act under the "receiving money and valuables related to election campaign"

A. Summary of the facts charged

As described in paragraph (2)(b)(a)(1).

B. Determination

The remainder of the facts charged except for the part acknowledged in Article 1-A (1) of the facts charged as stated in paragraph (1) of the above 2.2. A. (2) falls under the case where there is no proof of the facts charged as stated in paragraphs (2) (a) (2) and (3) of the above 2.1. As such, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the facts charged in each of the above facts charged are found guilty of violation of the Public Official Election Act under Article 1-A. (1) of the facts charged as stated in

○ Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the excessive disbursement of election expenses and violation of the Political Funds Act according to the "election expenses expenditure not involving a reported deposit account".

A. Summary of the facts charged

As described in paragraph (b)(2)(b)(1).

B. Determination

The remainder of the facts charged except for the part acknowledged in paragraphs (2) and (1) of Article 1-A of the facts charged as indicated in the above 2.2.2.2.2.2.2. (b) and (3) falls under the case where there is no proof of facts charged, and thus, the judgment of not guilty should be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, if the facts charged as stated in each of the above facts charged are found guilty of violation of the Public Official Election Act and Article 1-2.1.2.1 of the facts charged as stated in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of not guilty shall not be rendered separately.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges

The presiding judge or higher judge;

Judge Shin Jae-ok

Judge Kim Young-hoon

Note tin

1) The supplemental appellate brief, etc. filed after the lapse of the appellate brief is considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

2) Article 40 of the Criminal Code appears to be omitted in the preceding part of the "Article 40 on the application for changes in indictment."

3) Defendant A acknowledged this part of the facts charged on the trial date of the lower court (No. 825, 854 of the trial record), and this part of the prosecution in the summary of the final pleading.

The facts have been recognized (for example, No. 883 of the trial record). Also, the defendant A and the defense counsel have sufficient supporting evidence on the fourth trial date of the trial.

I stated that the facts charged are the same as the previous answer.

arrow