beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor such as: (a) the Defendant was committing a crime of late math and late math in the first instance; (b) the Defendant did not have any excessive amount of KRW 50,000 in the money delivered one time; (c) the delivery of money was immediately reported to a police office to the effect that the instant crime did not have any influence on the result of the election; (d) the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 300,00 won for a crime of violating the Clean Air Conservation Act in 2002; and (e) the Defendant was sentenced or sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 2010; and (e) there was no record of punishment for a crime of the same kind
However, the crime of this case, which is recognized by evidence, evidence law, and legal principles (the elements of the crime such as intentional act at the time of delivery), is a case where the defendant requested support from a local election to a specific candidate and delivered money to the elector (the right holder), and the purchase of money is seriously detrimental to the order of election that should be fair in accordance with the free decision-making by the right holder, and there is a serious crime that seriously undermines the fairness and transparency of the election system which is the foundation of democracy, and there is no liability for the crime, and the delivery of money is not consistent with the nature and the degree of crime. However, it is also recognized that the defendant's crime from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below is not sufficient to fully deny the crime, and the circumstances after the crime are not good, and the election by money has been formed for a long time since long time.
Each of the above factors of sentencing and this case.