The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a public official in political service who takes office as a member of the seventh Do Council.

Around July 2, 2014, the Defendant drafted a letter of statement from the “F” located in Gyeongnam, to the effect that the Defendant would vote against the Defendant at the election of the chairman of the next half of the scheduled political party, and that KRW 100 million would be compensated if the Defendant violated the commitment, six years after the 7th session of the G political party of G to H, I, J, K, L (Loss of Council Members on May 14, 2015).

On June 2016, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was stuffed in the election of the chairman of the 7th World War Veterans Association, and (b) demanded the members of G political parties, who signed the letter, to implement the said letter as written, respectively; (c) the Defendant required the Justice to compensate for KRW 100,000,000,000, to the effect that the Justice would not comply with the respective letter.

“The Defendant again demanded the Defendant to vote, and the J refused to vote, the existence of each letter and its contents will be published.

In other words, the Court tried to threaten theJ.

Accordingly, the defendant presented a copy of a letter of commitment to J on July 4, 2016, July 2016, 2016, around 20 minutes prior to the election of the chairman of the second half-class DD Council, the second half-class, the second half-class, the second half-class, the second half-class, the Gyeongnam M, and published a letter of commitment to the election of the chairman to begin immediately.

By intimidationing a member of the local council, the member interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the voting of the chairman of the local council.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant published to J a statement of facts constituting the crime (hereinafter “each of the instant statements”).

In a way referred to, the Court interfered with the execution of official duties by threatening the J.

Therefore, I examine whether the defendant made the above remarks to J.

According to the protocol of interrogation of the defendant's prosecutor's office, the defendant sent a copy of the letter of this case to J on July 4, 2016, which was the day of election, to J before voting.