beta
Text
The part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.
2. The fine
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The sentence of the court below (the fine of KRW 800,00 for the defendant A and C, and the fine of KRW 900,00 for the defendant B) is too uneased and unreasonable.
Defendant
Defendant A and C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants” only in paragraph (2)) provided the electorates or other persons related to the electorates with financial benefits equivalent to the difference by allowing them to use the golf course or contact at a price lower than the fixed price. Such contribution acts are not likely to undermine the establishment of fair election culture, which is the foundation of democratic politics, and distort the truth of the electors.
However, the Defendants actively provided profits to the other party.
In light of the fact that, rather than being asked by the other party for the reservation of golf course or contact, it was caused by the act of contribution in the process of responding to it, there is a considerable time interval between the Defendants’ act and the 6th nationwide local election day. As seen in all the Defendants’ failure in the above election, as a result, the Defendants’ crime may be deemed to have been relatively less likely to have been affected by the election, and that the Defendants did not have any clear guidelines on the use of special rights in the G Si council, and there was a tendency to answer the previous practice without particular awareness of the Defendants. In full view of all sentencing imposed conditions in pleadings, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court cannot be deemed to be unreasonable to avoid destruction of the sentence, even if it is too unafford that the fine of KRW 8 million imposed on the Defendants within the scope of the sentencing guidelines is too unafford.
Defendant
(Ex officio, prior to the judgment of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal on B, Defendant B's contact on February 21, 2010.