beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and J and the Prosecutor’s Defendant F by the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and J (1) misunderstanding of facts from April 5, 2012
4. There is no fact that Co-Defendant A or Defendant F received 420,000 won each from Co-Defendant A or Defendant F in return for an election campaign for six days until October.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million and an additional collection of KRW 4.20,000) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor (as to Defendant F)’s sentence (as to a fine of three million won) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Defendant B, C, D, E, G, H, H, I, and J also asserted as if they were alleged in the grounds of appeal for mistake of facts in the original judgment. The lower court acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the “judgment on the above Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion” part, and the evidence duly admitted and examined. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that Co-Defendant A and Defendant F provided each of the above Defendants A and Defendant F with KRW 420,000 in relation to an election campaign under the pretext of volunteer allowance as stated in the judgment of the lower court, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and that each of them stated in the lower judgment that Co-Defendant A and Defendant F provided each of the above Defendants with KRW 420,000 in relation to an election campaign for the 19th National Assembly members as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and therefore, Defendant B, C, D, and E in relation to the 19th National Assembly members election as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.
Examining the fact-finding and judgment of the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just.