beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The punishment of the lower court (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The defendant has carried out an election campaign as a public official by means other than those prescribed in the Public Official Election Act before the election period as a public official. This is the case where a single act constitutes several crimes, and thus punishment should be imposed on the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the most severe punishment, but the sentencing guidelines are not set for that part. In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant submitted a letter of resignation around January 20, 2014, which was before the crime of this case, the punishment for that part is weak, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is proper, referring to the sentencing guidelines for the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the distribution of documents, etc. by a method of improper act among the remaining crimes.
[Determination of Punishment] Violation of the Election Campaign Period for Election Campaign and Unlawful Election Campaign [Violation of Method of Election Campaign] - Where the objects are unspecified or many other parties: there is no mitigation element: (1) The defendant argues that the mail is delivered without closely examining whether it is illegal due to the urgent situation such as the occurrence of a fire at home, etc., and thus, it constitutes a case where the recognition of illegality is considerably weak. However, prior to the instant case, the defendant asked the election commission as to the legitimacy of a chain sent along with the instant printed materials, and there was a considerable period of time to the election day. In light of the fact that there was a considerable period of time before the instant case, the reason alleged by the defendant alone does not appear to be “cases where the recognition of illegality is significantly weak”.
② The Defendant’s violation of the instant method of election campaign is insignificant.