(영문) 부산고등법원 창원재판부 2015.1.7.선고 2014노342 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Judgment of the lower court

Imposition of Judgment

Text

Reasons

Judges

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원 창원재판부 2015.1.7.선고 2014노342 판결

(창원)공직선거법위반

Cases

Defendant

A person shall be appointed.

8. H;

9. J;

10. K;

11. L.

A person shall be appointed.

14. 0

15. P;

16. Q.

17.R

18. S.

19. Telecommunication

Appellant

Both parties

Prosecutor

Kim Sung-mun ( Indictment), Park Jong-chul, Han-dae (each trial)

Defense Counsel

U.S. Law Firm (For all of the defendants)

Judgment of the lower court

Changwon District Court Decision 2014Gohap39 (Partial Judgment) decided October 13, 2014

Imposition of Judgment

January 7, 2015

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts

① The remaining Defendants, except Defendant A and B, hold an executive group by organizing the “ Future Creation” and holding the executive group on five pages, but the “ Future Creation” is a pure civic group or social organization organized by the people who want to develop South and North Korea, regardless of Defendant A, and such group is merely an organization’s own activities, and does not constitute an election campaign under the name of a “ future creation” as the facts charged. ② Defendant A was present at the above group, but there was a fact that Defendant A was present at the above group. However, there was no error in the misapprehension of the judgment that found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: one year of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months and one year of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for April, Defendant E, H, L, P: 3 million won of fine, Defendant B, F, J, M, and N: 1.5 million won of each fine, Defendant C, G,O, R, S, and T: one million won of each fine, and one million won of each fine, Defendant K, and Q: 700,000 won of each fine).

B. Public prosecutor (an unreasonable sentencing decision)

Each of the above types of punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by the Defendants

1) The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court overall, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its detailed judgment under the title of “judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel”. Examining the judgment of the lower court closely and closely with the evidence, the said judgment is justified.

2) Furthermore, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, " future creation" is not a pure meaning, but a private organization established and operated for the political purpose of helping Defendant A's election campaign, etc., or a private group under Article 87 (1) 3 of the Public Official Election Act, and such words and actions as are written in the facts charged are deemed sufficient to be evaluated as an act of election campaign in itself, even if they were to attend the meeting of the " future creation" and to be considered as a specific statement that can be confirmed by evidence such as the statement of the person who participated in the election, etc., in light of the fact that the above 10-year election campaign organization and the above 2-year election campaign organization's new 0-year election campaign organization's 10-year election campaign organization's 20-year election campaign organization's 10-year election campaign organization's 20-year election campaign organization's 20-year election campaign organization's 10-year election campaign organization's 20-year election campaign organization'.

B) Furthermore, the close relationship between the Defendant and the “ Future Creation.” As the Defendants’ assertion, deeming the “ Future Creation” as not a private group, but a pure civic group or social organization, which is a public official’s status, as the present head of the Gun, is difficult to take advantage of the degree of involvement in the above organization’s activities. Defendant A attended the inaugural general meeting of the “ Future Creation” held on March 2012, and sporadsate, and actively participated in the activities of the public official and the head of the Gun, who is a local public official, from July 21, 2013 to July 26, 2013, as well as from the date of the instant criminal facts, it was difficult for Defendant A to actively participate in the activities of the public official and the head of the Gun, who is a local public official, as the place of preparation and proceeding of the above events.

C) Defendant D, the secretary general, created the articles of association and organizational discipline of the above organization, while Defendant E, who is the chairman of the committee of future creation, created an activity plan and delivered it to Defendant B, who is the chief of the office of the office of the secretary general in South Sea-Si/Gun. In the document of “2013 future creation activity plan ( inside)” discovered inside Defendant B’s car, the document of “2013 future creation activity plan ( inside)” was held, the detailed organization of Eup/Myeon in 200, the reorganization of the detailed organization of Eup/Myeon ( youth, women, village book), the organization reorganization of the two Eups/Myeon, the establishment of the central executive department, the combination of the two Eups/Myeons each month after the organization reorganization, and the women’s organization located in the South Sea-Si that supported Defendant A, including evidence recording 263,1752, 1763, 176, 1838, 1838, 185, and 206).

In support of the fact that it is an organization organized and tried to become capable.

D) Most of the general participants except the Defendants, from among those who participated in the five pages of the facts charged in the instant case, make a statement with the same purport as “I have returned to the designated restaurant with a meal substitute for the Defendant A, which was related to the next election of the head of the Gun, with the aim of and without knowledge of the purpose or character of the meeting in advance,” and with the instruction of officers,” (Evidence record 284 to 354 pages, 358 to 482 pages, 506 to 583 pages, 659 to 761 pages, 803 to 100 pages, 1630 to 1683, 2104 through 2417, 2443 to 245 to 257, 254 to 275 to 274, 257, 275 to 274, 275 to 257, etc.).

E) Among those who participated in the 5th meeting of 15th and 5th 6th 5th 1, 36th 5th 1, 36th 5th 5th 1, 36th 5th 5th 166th 5th 5th 5th 5th 166th 5th 966th 5th 5th 5th 5th 9666th 966th 5th 5th 5th 5th 9666th 5th 5th 5th 5th 9666th 1666th 966th 5th 5th 205th 966th 5th 5th 205th 166th 5th 5th 5th 5th 1966th 966th 5th 5th 195th 195th 1966667887 19787

3) Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination on the grounds of unfair sentencing by both parties

1) It is clear that only a political party can participate in an election, but only if a citizen can participate in the election, it can be expressed through an organization that has secured transparency and sporadity of election funds (accounting, funds are limited to election; hereinafter the same shall apply). However, in full view of the provisions of the Constitution, the Political Parties Act, and the Public Official Election Act, various systems that allow one vote given to one person to have objective value are installed, and one of the main means to realize this can be identified as a political party system (two-party systems or multi-party systems). Therefore, it is difficult to ensure transparency and value of the fund in the election of a political party or non-party member in the name of a political party or non-party member, and it is still difficult to ensure transparency and value of the fund in the election of a political party or non-party member in the name of a political party or organization in the past, and it is still difficult to ensure transparency and value of the fund in the election of a political party or organization in the future.

B) However, the instant crime recognized by evidence, evidence-based rules, and legal principles is a private organization established and operated by the Defendants for the purpose of supporting Defendant A’s political activities, and thus, an illegal election campaign, such as prior election campaign, contribution act, etc., against local voters in advance of “it is difficult to view that the accounts and funds were voluntarily secured without transparency,” which is difficult to be considered as having been voluntarily secured.

Moreover, the Defendants’ election campaign did not deviate from the past figures that Defendant A, the head of incumbent head of the Gun, was trying to create and promote a public opinion of support and support in the 6th nationwide local election in 2014. As such, the Defendants’ election campaign did not meet the requirements to be protected by the constitutional principles and values of the first citizen’s political freedom, freedom of association, freedom of expression and equality, etc.

C) Ultimately, it is inevitable to punish the Defendants strictly in accordance with the Public Official Election Act. However, at the time, it was difficult for the Defendants to have a direct impact on the election as of the sixth-time nationwide local election, which will be implemented in 2014, at the time, at the time of ten months, and “ future creation” was investigated as the instant crime from August 2013, which led to the investigation from August 2013. As a result, Defendant A was not elected in the said election, taking into account the Defendants’ specific sentencing.

2) Individual grounds for determination A) Defendant A

Although the defendant is in the position of a public official who shall take the initiative in the establishment of a transparent and fair election climate at the time of committing the crime of this case, he is found to have violated the Public Official Election Act at the center of the crime of this case, the frequency of election campaign and election campaign in the name of the organization in the name of the prior election campaign of this case is not significant. Nevertheless, there is a lack of strong anti-discrimination while completely denying the crime, there is a lack of fine of KRW 700,000 as a result of the violation of the Public Official Election and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act of 202, a fine of KRW 500,000 as a result of the same crime of 203, even though he has been sentenced to each of the charges of the same crime in the same time, and there

However, it is also recognized that there are more favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors such as the defendant's violation of the above two times of election law, the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2005 (pacting KRW 700,000), and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act in 1985, which received special amnesty in 1987 (the crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act in 1985 (the crime of imprisonment with prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution).

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (from April to October), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and it is not deemed unreasonable because it is too heavy or unabrupted.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an election campaign under the name of the organization: Violation of election crimes group and election campaign period.

Illegal election campaign, type 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign), planned and organized crimes, intended for unspecified persons or many other parties, or repeatedly commits a crime for a considerable period of time, previous convictions (including fines) and crimes committed by candidates, etc.

-The main criteria for suspended sentence: Defendant B (a) who committed a crime of social ties, planned and organized crimes, intended for an unspecified number of unspecified or many other parties, or committed a crime repeatedly for a considerable period of time;

The defendant's chief secretary at the time of committing the crime of this case, who is actively involved in the crime of this case, is a local public official whose election campaign is prohibited, and the number of election campaigns in the name of the prior election campaign of this case and the organization is not many. Nevertheless, there are unfavorable factors of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing, such as denying the crime and falling short of serious reflectivity while denying it.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant's favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors are also recognized, such as the fact that there is no other criminal records, in addition to being sentenced or sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 as a violation of the Juvenile Protection Act

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (a fine of KRW 1 million to KRW 7.33 million), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and is too heavy or unreasonable.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act through an election campaign under the name of an organization: A election crime group, a violation of the election campaign period, an illegal election campaign, a type 2 (violation of the method of election campaign), a planned organized crime, an unspecified or many other parties, or a crime committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

It is recognized that the defendant is actively involved in the overall activities of the above organization while working as the promotion committee chairperson at the time of the crime. Nevertheless, there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the denial of the crime and the lack of serious reflectivity.

However, it is also recognized that there are favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral factors such as the fact that the number of crimes takes place one time, that the defendant went to the 6th anniversary of the 2014 local council member who was implemented in the 2014, that he was not elected, that there was a fine of 1 million won as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2006, that there was no other criminal power other than the punishment or issuance, and that there was no other criminal power other than the punishment or issuance in 2008.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (a fine of one million won to three million won), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and is too heavy or unreasonable.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Defendant D of election crimes, illegal election campaigns in violation of the election campaign period, type 1 (violation of the election campaign period), planned and organized crimes, and crimes against unspecified persons or many other parties).

The defendant seems to have been actively involved in the crime of this case as the standing committee chairperson at the time of the crime, such as the fact that the above organization is considered to have been actually involved in the crime of this case, the number of election campaigns in violation of the restriction on contributions of this case and election campaigns in the name of the organization is not significant, but there are unfavorable factors of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing, such as the fact that there is lack sufficient reflectivity while completely denying the crime.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant has more favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors, such as the fact that there is no other criminal records except that the defendant has been sentenced or sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 as a crime of gambling in 201.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (from April to August 1), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and is too heavy or unreasonable.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a violation of the Restriction on Contribution Act: Election Crimes group, violation of the Restriction on Contribution Act, contribution act, money and valuables or benefits provided are extremely insignificant / Planning and organized crimes, etc.

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an election campaign under the name of the organization: Election crime group, violation of the Election Campaign Period and illegal election campaign, type 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign), planned organized crimes, against unspecified persons or many other parties, or repeated crimes for a considerable period, etc.

-The main criteria for suspended execution: where social relationship is clear, provided money or benefits are extremely insignificant; / where provided money or benefits are committed for an unspecified or large number of unspecified parties or repeatedly for a considerable period of time, etc.

e) Defendant E

The defendant, as the Director General of the Future Creation at the time of the crime, seems to have actively participated in the crime of this case, and the number of election campaigns in the name of the above organization is not significant, but there are unfavorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors, such as the fact that the defendant's strong denial of the crime falls short of serious reflectivity.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant has more favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors such as a fine of KRW 300,000,000 as embezzlement in 1989, a fine of KRW 700,000 as a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 197, and a fine of KRW 1 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2010, other than a sentence or issuance of a fine of KRW 1 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 1985.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an election campaign under the name of the organization: Violation of election crimes group and election campaign period.

Defendant F) Defendant F for an illegal election campaign, type 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign), planned and organized crime, and intended for unspecified persons or many other parties, or repeatedly committing a crime over a considerable period of time, etc.

The defendant is a co-chairperson at the time of committing the crime and actively involved in the overall activities of the above organization. Nevertheless, there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the denial of the crime and the lack of serious reflectivity.

However, the number of crimes is two times, and the defendant is also recognized as a favorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the fact that there is no other criminal power, in addition to the punishment or issuance of a fine of KRW 30,000 as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 1971.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (a fine of one million won to seven million won), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and is too heavy or unreasonable.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an election campaign under the name of the organization: Election crimes group, violation of the Election Campaign Period and illegal election campaigns, type 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign), planned systematic crimes, unspecified or many other parties, etc.

G) Defendant G.

It is recognized that the defendant is actively involved in the overall activities of the above organization while working as the " future creation" at the time of committing the crime, but there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the denial of the crime and the lack of serious reflectivity.

However, it is also recognized that there are more favorable factors of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing, such as the number of crimes is limited to two times and that there is no criminal power.

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (a fine of KRW 1 million to KRW 6.5 million), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and is too heavy or unreasonable.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

- A crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to advance election: A election crime group, a violation of the election campaign period, an illegal election campaign, a type 1 (violation of the election campaign period), a planned and organized crime, an unspecified or many other parties, etc.

H) Defendant H

It is recognized that the defendant is actively involved in the activities of the face area of the above organization while working as the chairperson at the time of the crime. Nevertheless, there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as denying the crime and falling short of serious reflectivity.

However, the number of crimes is more than twice, and the defendant is also recognized as more favorable sentencing factors such as the fact that there is no other criminal power than the sentence or issuance of a fine of KRW 500,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 200, or objective and neutral sentencing factors.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many offences.

I) Defendant J’s act as the secretary general at the time of the commission of the crime and actively participated in the activities of the Myeon area of the above organization; the village head is prohibited from election campaign; however, there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as denying the crime, and the lack of serious reflectivity.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

- As this Chapter, a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an election campaign: A election crime group, a violation of the election campaign period, an illegal election campaign, a type 2 (violation of the method of election campaign), a planned and organized crime, an unspecified or many other parties, etc.

(j) Defendant K

It is recognized that the defendant is actively involved in the activities of the face area of the above organization while working as the chairman of the women's committee at the time of committing the crime. Nevertheless, there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as denying the crime and falling short of serious reflectivity.

However, it is also recognized that there are favorable factors of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing, such as the number of crimes is limited to one time and that there is no criminal power.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Defendant L of election crimes, illegal election campaigns in violation of the election campaign period, Type 1 (Violation of the election campaign period), planned and organized crimes, and crimes against unspecified persons or many other parties

The defendant is the chairman of the ‘ Future Creation' and actively involved in the activities of the region of the above organization at the time of the crime. Nevertheless, there are unfavorable sentencing factors such as denying the crime, or objective and neutral sentencing factors such as the lack of strong reflectivity while denying the crime.

However, it is also recognized that there are favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors such as the fact that the number of crimes is more than twice, that the defendant has no other criminal power, in addition to being sentenced or sentenced to a fine of KRW 100,000 as a crime of gambling in 1977, a fine of KRW 100,000 as an occupational negligence in 1983, and a fine of KRW 500,000 as an occupational negligence in 198.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

(l) Defendant M&C is recognized as an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the fact that Defendant M&C works as the Director General at the time of committing the crime that actively participated in the activities of the Myeon area of the above organization, that is, the community head is prohibited from election campaign, and that there is insufficient reflectivity while denying the crime.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

(m) Defendant N

It is recognized that the defendant is the chairperson of the " Future Creation at the time of the crime" and actively participated in the activities of the region of the above organization. Nevertheless, there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the denial of the crime and the lack of serious reflectivity.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

n) Defendant 0 is recognized as an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the fact that Defendant 0 is the Director General of the Department of New Creation at the time of committing the crime that he actively participated in the activities of the Myeon area of the above organization, and that the serious reflectivity is insufficient while denying the crime.

However, it is also recognized that there are more favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors, such as the fact that the number of crimes is more than twice, that of the defendant's violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in 192, that of a fine of 300,000 won, and that of a fine of 500,000 won has no other criminal power, as a crime of invalidation of an indication of official duties

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

o) Defendant P

However, it is also recognized that there are more favorable factors of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing, such as that the defendant has been sentenced or sentenced to a fine of two million won by violating the Forestry Cooperatives Act in 2002, and that there is no other criminal records.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Many Crimes

-Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an election campaign under the name of an organization: Election crimes group, violation of the Election Campaign Period and illegal election campaigns, type 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign), planned and organized crimes, and cases intended for unspecified or many other parties, etc.

C) Defendant Q.

The defendant's movement of â€˜ Future Creation' at the time of crime is a female chairperson and actively takes part in the regional activities of the above organization. Nevertheless, there are unfavorable sentencing factors such as denying the crime, or objective and neutral sentencing factors such as the lack of strong reflectivity while denying the crime.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Defendant R of election crimes, illegal election campaigns in violation of the election campaign period, Type 1 (Violation of the election campaign period), planned and organized crimes, and crimes against unspecified persons or many other parties, etc.)

It is recognized that the defendant is actively involved in the activities of the region of the above organization while working as the secretary general at the time of the crime. Nevertheless, there is a lack of serious reflectivity while denying the crime, and even in 2010, there is a record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 8 million as a violation of the Public Official Election Act, or an objective and neutral sentencing factor is recognized.

However, it is also recognized that there are favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors, such as the fact that the number of crimes is only one time and that it appears not to participate in the overall activities of the above organization.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- A criminal offense group, a violation of an election campaign period and illegal election campaign, a type 1 (violation of an election campaign period), a planned and organized crime, and a criminal offense against unspecified persons or many other parties, such as criminal records of the same kind (including fines).

r) Defendant S

The defendant, as a member of the " future creation" at the time of committing the crime, has participated in the activities of the above organization, but it is found that there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the fact that the defendant's strong denial of the crime is insufficient.

However, more favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors are also acknowledged, such as the fact that the number of crimes takes place one time, that the defendant commits a fine of 200,000 won for the crime of occupational embezzlement in 1983, that of a violation of the Fishing Vessels Act in 1996, that of a fine of 70,000 won for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 196, and that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 196, there

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines (a fine of one million won to five million won), the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and is too heavy or unreasonable.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

- Election Offense Group, Violation of Prohibition of and Restriction on Contribution Act, Contribution Act, where money and valuables provided or benefits are extremely insignificant / Planned and organized crimes, etc.

s) Defendant T

However, it is recognized that there are more favorable factors of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing, such as the fact that the number of crimes takes place one time, that the defendant commits a fine of 50,000 won for the crime of assault in 1981, and that there is no other force in addition to the punishment or issuance of a fine of 10,000 won for the crime of assault in 190.

【Main Grounds for Determination of Sentencing】

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.