logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.23 2016노3559
공직선거법위반등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are clearly distinguishable from other facts because the date, time, place, amount, name, etc. of the crime are indicated, and thus, the facts charged was specified.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the lower court specified this part of the facts charged.

The judgment dismissing the public prosecution was rendered on the grounds that it cannot be seen, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) According to the statement of multiple rates prepared by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant multiple rates”) among the facts charged in relation to the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign, the fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 70 million from N in connection with the election campaign can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of 13 million won in relation to the election campaign by N, and found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as the receipt of the remaining 64 million won. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the contents of the instant multi-party interest table in the crime list (1), among the provision of money and valuables related to election campaign, the following can be sufficiently recognized that all of the monetary expenditure details in the aforementioned attached Form are written by the Defendant in relation to the election campaign.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as having provided the above attached Form directly, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion

(d) election campaigns;

arrow