Acts by a political party to bring them to the voters and to use them as real evidence, as a result of a voting for votes obtained by the political party, and the intention of unlawful acquisition.

When the defendant found a child-use sports and adult slots, etc., which are goods owned by him, along with the photo, printed materials, etc. of the presidential candidate at the back of the YY established in the village entrance-gu, the defendant voluntarily presented the fact that he was able to use it as evidence at the above political party's support site for the presidential candidate, and kept it in our country after presenting it as evidence of the quantity public tax by the above political party to the public officials who are gathered at the support site for the candidate of the political party to which he belongs, and then returned it to the person who was revealed as goods owned by him after that end, the defendant's intent of unlawful acquisition of the above act cannot be recognized.

Article 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Jinju Branch of the Msan District Court of the first instance (88 Gohap19)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 10,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of larceny is acquitted.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal is that the defendant is a member of the Uniform Democratic Party (hereinafter referred to as a " Democratic Party"), as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, and sees only one studio and one studio (hereinafter referred to as the "the article in this case") for children, as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, and it is true that the above article was about Non-Party 1 at the time, and it was about to be mistaken for the articles to be provided to voters for the purpose of election in the Democratic Party (hereinafter referred to as the "Private Party") and reporting it to the Democratic Party as evidence. The court below found the defendant guilty of larceny without any intention to steal the above article in this case. The court below found the defendant guilty that the above article in this case was stolen to the public prosecutor's 2ndio, who had no influence on the election of the candidate in this case, and that the above article in this case should also be deleted to the public, and that the court below found the defendant guilty that the article in this case did not interfere with the 2nd.

First of all, as to the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts as to the theft of the defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty, and cited as evidence each of the defendant, witness, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3's testimony in the court, and the record of the statement as to Nonindicted 1 in the preparation of judicial police affairs.

However, among the above evidences cited by the court below, the defendant's statement in the court is the same as the defendant alleged in the reasons for appeal, and each statement in the court of non-indicted 2 and non-indicted 3, and the statement in the non-indicted 1, which was made by the judicial police officer, is merely a statement that the defendant brought about the above articles possessed by non-indicted 1, which were loaded on the rear seat of the non-indicted 3, even if considering the above evidences, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant brought about for the purpose of cutting down the above articles. Considering the defendant's statement in the court of the court below and the statement in the court of the non-indicted 4 after the investigation agency of the non-indicted 1, 1987, it is hard to find that each of the above evidences was found that the defendant was about the above 13th presidential candidate's own property before and after the presidential election, and that the defendant was about to be found to have been using the above articles in the counter-party 4 and the defendant's entrance to the above political party.

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there is no proof as to the Defendant’s intention to obtain unlawful acquisition, and thus, acquitted the Defendant on this point and the fact that the remaining violation of the Act on the Presidential Election is deemed concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the judgment by rendering a single sentence. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment should not be reversed in its entirety without having to examine the grounds for appeal against the Defendant

Therefore, the party members accept the defendant's appeal and reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and render a decision again as follows.

The Defendant as a democratic party member, around 12:00 on December 15, 1987, and around 12:12:00 on December 15, 1987, for the purpose of preventing the non-party members from being elected to the 13th President, the Defendant published false facts as to the non-party members of the 200 executive branch to which Non-party 1’s adult slickper, etc. belongs, which was opened in the market located within the seat of the 13th presidential candidate of the Democratic Party in Gyeongnam-ri, a democratic candidate of the political party, who is a candidate for the president of the political party, belongs to the 200 executive branch, who was gathered at the 200 executive branch.

The facts of the judgment

1. Statement corresponding thereto in the court of the defendant in the first trial record of the court below;

1. Each statement in the second trial record of the court below which corresponds to the witness in the court of non-indicted 2 and non-indicted 3

1. The record of Nonindicted Party 2’s statement regarding the preparation of a document handling affairs by judicial police officers can be recognized by taking into account the corresponding statements and records.

The defendant's act of holding in the election shall be punished by a fine of 100,000 won within the limit of the amount determined by Article 159 (1) of the Presidential Election Act, and if the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be detained in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of 10,000 won into one day in accordance with Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act, and provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered in accordance with Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, with regard to “the Defendant, at around 11:00 on December 15, 1987, 1987, followed by Nonindicted 3’s vehicle located in the front of the office of the 6th century, Nonindicted 3’s house located in Dobong-ri Man-ri Ma-ri Madle-ri-ri Madle-ri-do, and used the victim’s culture as a child’s 9,000 won, such as the 1nd, 1nd, 1nd, and 1nd, for adults, and stolen it,” the Defendant was found not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no proof as stated in

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Song Jae-gu (Presiding Judge)