logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2014.12.10 2014노633
공직선거법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment of a fine of KRW 900,00 against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The purpose of the Public Official Election Act is to ensure that elections for public office, which are the basis of democratic politics, are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and to contribute to the maintenance and development of democratic politics by securing the legitimacy of state power by preventing any malpractice related to the election. As such, unfair influence on elections in violation of the Public Official Election Act and the act of causing damage to the fairness of election is necessary to be strictly punished in accordance with the Act. The crime of this case contains false facts as if the defendant had no record of past conviction in the criminal records of election campaign bulletins that are important material for fair judgment of the voters. Such act is highly likely to mislead the fair judgment of the voters as to the suitability of public office, such as the quality and morality of candidates, and in the case of the election of local council members, there is a relatively high opportunity for the voters to access information on candidates, and thus, the election campaign bulletins that contain the candidate’s career, etc. has a relatively impact on the candidate selection of the voters.

On the other hand, a summary order of KRW 1,50,00 is issued due to occupational injury or occupational injury, and the above summary order becomes final and conclusive after the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflects the depth of the defendant's mistake, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and the defendant has a fire in the factory operated by him around 1993, and the above summary order becomes final and conclusive as it is. The fact that the defendant omitted is about the crime before 20 years, and the crime is committed by negligence and the result is not much severe, and the punishment is determined by the summary order, not by formal trial, but by the summary order.

arrow