logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.02.16 2016노3051
공직선거법위반
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

The Defendant did not prepare a loudspeaker, and the police officer was at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not intentionally engage in election campaign using a loudspeaker, and did not intentionally violate the Public Official Election Act.

The Defendant may appeal for support as a preliminary candidate, and thus does not violate the restriction on the election campaign period.

Since the defendant distributed his house and received the price, the house was finally provided to police officers or other persons other than the residents of the constituency, it does not constitute a case where the defendant violated the restriction on contribution acts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (amounting to 800,000 won) is too unfilled and unfair.

Judgment

According to the facts of the defendant's mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, the election campaign for the use of a loudspeaker, and the records of the criminal's existence, the defendant did not prepare a loudspeaker, and it appears that police officers were also at the same time at that time.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conducted an election campaign with the objective of promoting his election by making a speech to the same effect as the facts stated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below using the probability device and the criminal intent of the defendant is recognized.

In addition, even though the defendant did not know whether his act violated the Public Official Election Act, it is simply the site of the law, and therefore there is no influence on the establishment of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

The summary of this part of the facts charged as to whether an advance election campaign was carried out is reasonable to the effect that the defendant carried out an election campaign using a positive device other than those prescribed by the Public Official Election Act prior to the election campaign period in violation of Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act.

The defendant registered as a preliminary candidate.

arrow