logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.12.11 2018고합98
공직선거법위반
Text

Defendant

Punishment against A is set at KRW 1.5 million, and the punishment against Defendant B, C, and D is set at KRW 1.0 million, respectively.

Reasons

Criminal facts

Defendants are seven simultaneous local election campaign workers who were candidates for the FF market nationwide, which was implemented on June 13, 2018.

Defendant

A The promotion of election assistance, and the rest of the Defendants were members, respectively.

No one shall distribute, post, spread, screen or display printed matters, etc. indicating a candidate's name, in which the contents supporting, recommending or opposing a candidate are included, or the candidate's name are indicated, in contravention of the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, in order to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to distribute G’s name to each apartment household, and around 11:40 on June 10, 2018 to 12:20 on H apartment, and around 11:40 on June 10, 2018, Defendant A divided the name of G kept in one’s own name into Defendant B, C, and D and distributed it to Defendant C. Accordingly, Defendant C distributed approximately 270 units on the aggregate of 106 Dong and 107 Dong and 105 Dong, and approximately 190 units on the aggregate of 103 Dong, 105 Dong, 106 Dong, and 107 Dong and 107 Dong, each of the entrance doors of the 1110 households.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. On-site report (the photograph taken by K in exclusive charge of the election, CCTV image data confirmed by the election team dispatched to the site, the vehicle for use, the H apartment floor plan, the recovered name tag, the current status of G candidate election office members, and H CCTV image data) / [the Defendants did not distribute all the above apartment units to the above apartment units, but did not distribute all the name cards en bloc to the above apartment units, but the Defendant B, C, and D did not share the name cards only to the front door room, while the Defendants stated that all the facts charged were recognized by this Court, and this Court stated that the Defendants’ statement by witnesses who can be confirmed from the evidence duly adopted and examined, and the above CCTV image image of the above apartment.

arrow