2017No145 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Defendant A, B, and Prosecutor (Defendants)

Maximum Jae-gu (Public Prosecution), Doese (Public Trial) and Maximum Domin (Public Trial)

Law Firm F (for Defendant A)

Attorney G

Law Firm K (for Defendant B)

Attorney L

Attorney EF (National Election for Defendant C)

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Gohap41 Decided February 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

All appeals filed by Defendant A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) On January 1, 2016, as regards Wcafeteria group

Defendant 2) Defendant 2 did not speak at a cafeteria meeting as indicated in the lower judgment. In addition, in light of the fact that the above meeting was led by B, the Defendant and C did not know that ten residents of R area were present, and that C independently settled the meal cost, Defendant did not invite a prior election campaign with B and C. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) On February 6, 2016, around X-Myeon Association of Older Persons 3)

The defendant did not speak at a meeting of the Senior Citizens Association as stated in the judgment below. In addition, distributing the name cards by the defendant is an ordinary act, not an election campaign, and does not constitute a name distribution or advance election campaign by unlawful means. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

C) On January 14, 2016, as to AC-friendly gathering 4)

On January 14, 2016, the Defendant did not attend a meeting of a clan gathering. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts.

D) As to the illegal election campaign recruited with AD (5)

around March 5, 2016, the Defendant only called AD that he would participate in a public opinion poll, and did not call that AD voluntarily complained of support. Moreover, Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, which limits the method of an intra-party competition campaign, applies only to the intra-party competition conducted by granting voting rights, and does not apply to the intra-party competition through a public opinion poll method of 100% as in the instant case. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment (fine 800,000) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B6)

1) Legal principles

A) As to the W cafeteria meeting

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not prepare a job for election campaign, and that there was no prior notification that A will attend, and that there was no knowledge that 10 persons in the R area will attend, and that C independently paid meal expenses, the Defendant first met C on the day, and C did not know the fact-finding that a person in the restaurant was a R area resident, the Defendant did not invite a prior election campaign with A and C. Nevertheless, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine.

B) As to the meeting of the Senior Citizens Association, distributing A’s name cards is an ordinary act, not an election campaign, but an election campaign. Moreover, since the Defendant was unaware of the delivery of name cards, there was no conspiracy with A and a crime. Nevertheless, the lower court convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal doctrine.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the fine of 600,000 won) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) As to the W cafeteria meeting

(1) Even if the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution on December 31, 2015 with respect to the schedule of the election district for the National Assembly member under Article 25(2) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012), the concept of "election district" is not invalid in itself, but is not defined separately in the concept of "election district" in the Public Official Election Act, so the concept of "election district" should be interpreted in a combined manner. Considering that the purpose of the provision prohibiting contributions is to ensure the fairness of the election to be implemented in the future, since the "election district" under the premise of Article 112(1) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 14073, Mar. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) is a "election district for the National Assembly member and the members of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly," the defendants' act of offering the "election district to A" is not a "election district for the National Assembly member.

Nevertheless, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, the lower court found the Defendants to have provided meals to the R-Gun residents at the W cafeteria conference around January 1, 2016, but rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no valid constituency as a premise for contribution act according to the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending

(2) The Defendants’ purchase and inducement of understanding (the facts charged in the preliminary charge)

An act of inducing purchase and understanding under Article 230(1)1 of the former Public Official Election Act uses the concept of "an elector" rather than "an elector" as an object of such act. Since the elector does not limit the elector who has the right to vote and is listed on the electoral register but includes "a person eligible to be listed on the electoral register" before preparing the electoral register, various circumstances, such as resident registration status, age, etc.

Based on the above election day, a person who is eligible to be an elector is deemed to be an elector. In this case, the Defendants’ offering of meals at a cafeteria meeting constitutes an act of purchase and inducement for understanding, on the ground that the Defendants committed an act of offering meals by taking into account the status of Defendant A, the prospective site for departure, the face of the participants, etc., as the persons attending the cafeteria meeting were registered as RA and have been adults with the right to vote.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the act of inducing purchase and understanding under Article 230 (1) 1 of the former Public Official Election Act was conducted without a valid constituency as the premise according to the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution, and also constitutes an election campaign and cannot be deemed to have been purchased for the purpose of election. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) The publication of Defendant A’s false facts

The promotional materials for parliamentary activity report produced and distributed by the defendant state "BP Q Q2 air air airfield blank blanks", and the purport of this is that the Air Force Airfield had no plan to move to the BR shooting range, and in light of the language, it is difficult to deem that there was a possibility of transfer on the ground that the transfer plan was not in existence, and that the N market was included in T, the defendant published false facts. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it cannot be deemed that false facts were published in the important part, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the Defendants (the fine of KRW 80,00,000 for the defendant A, the fine of KRW 600,000 for the defendant B, and the fine of KRW 500,00 for the defendant C) is too unfasible.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A and B

A. As to the cafeteria group

1) Whether Defendant A’s remarks related to the election (Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts)

A) The judgment of the court below

In the lower court, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant made the statement as indicated in its reasoning, taking full account of the following circumstances:

① At the time, people attending the cafeteria, who attended the cafeteria at the time, were sitting in three tables, such as AO, AF, AH, AG, U, M, AM, AI, AI, and AI and B. ② The president of the R group, who was seated on the table on the entrance side of the Defendant, mainly divided into the table table, was consistently stated in the election commission and the prosecutor’s office, and in the lower court, that the Defendant consistently stated that “on the face of the constituency, the commission and the prosecutor’s office,” and that the Defendant “on the face of the constituency,” and that there was no reason to see that AF made a testimony that is particularly unfavorable to the Defendant, and thus, the credibility of the statement is credibility.

③ Also, at the time of the 2nd examination and examination of the suspect, B made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was able to memory if the constituency was satisfy,” and that “the Defendant was satisfying,” the participants on the day of the instant case and sent a restaurant to the Defendant’s contact number. The Defendant made a statement to the same effect as the Defendant at the time of the election commission or the prosecutor’s investigation, and these statements are credibility of the Defendant’s statement because there were no special reasons to make unfavorable statements. ⑤ The Defendant was able to make a statement to the effect that the Defendant was satisfying or unsatisfying the Defendant’s speech and behavior at the time of the instant examination, and that the Defendant was satisfying or unsatisfying the Defendant’s remarks to the effect that it was unsatisfyed and unsatisfying the Defendant’s remarks to the effect that it was unsatisfy.

B) The judgment of this Court

In light of the following circumstances that the court below properly adopted and examined, the court below's finding of facts and determination of the court below, which is the same purport, are justified, since the defendant could sufficiently have made a statement as stated in the court below's decision, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, as alleged by the defendant.

① On February 16, 2016, the AF made a statement in the prosecutor’s investigation on March 16, 2016 that “IF submitted to the election commission on February 16, 2016 and that “on the other hand, IF is not infinitely unreasonable if I do not know that I are ever N and N are finite.” If I do so, I would like to say that R is finitely unreasonable. If I would like to finite, I would like to say that I would like to finite. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to make a statement on the second day of the trial of the lower court, but I would like to say that I would not finitely express that I would like to say that I would not finite because I would like to say that I would not know that I would like to say that I would not know that I would like to say that I would not know that I would like to say that I would not know that I would like to say that I would not speak.

② On February 16, 2016, U submitted a written confirmation to the election commission on March 16, 2016 and the prosecutor’s investigation on March 16, 2016, stated, “The defendant stored as NN National Assembly member in a mobile phone with the name of the defendant. Although the election district was not determined, the defendant has this position in this context, it is illegal, but first, personnel information will be held. B, member of the National Assembly made such a position.” However, during the second trial of the lower court, U stated that it is unclear whether he was memory or not, however, considering that the contents of the preceding statement were detailed and it was not long after a meeting, it appears that the credibility is higher than the statement of the lower court.

③ At the confirmation document submitted to the election commission on February 16, 2016, AM made a statement that "the defendant will leave the election and the election district may be integrated". On March 24, 2016, AM made a statement that it was unable to hear the speech related to the election in the prosecutor's investigation. In the confirmation document submitted to the election commission on February 16, 2016, the president of the RM council stated that "the defendant is ordered to write down the letter to the defendant, and the defendant is likely to be integrated into N and R election districts, so it is likely that N and R election districts will be integrated," and that it was denied on March 16, 2016 and the second trial date of the court below. However, it is difficult for AM and AI to reject the credibility of the confirmation document prepared in light of what the content of the investigation by the election commission was known, which was sufficiently affected by them, and in particular, it is difficult for AM council to have prepared the confirmation document and its credibility.

④ According to the C’s monetary recording on March 13, 2016 between the Defendant and C, it appears that the Defendant demanded C to make a statement to the effect that “The Defendant was fluent in several persons, was fluencing with respect to the agricultural pending issues, and was flucing with “fluoring to memory,” and that it was supported by the Defendant’s statement as stated in the lower judgment.

2) Whether there is a public contest (the defendant A and B's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles)

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendants argued to the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment, and the lower court determined that the Defendants recruited a prior election campaign with C by taking account of the following circumstances:

(1) On January 1, 2016, Defendant A: (a) called Defendant B at around 11:41, and called Defendant B for five minutes; (b) obtained participants by telephone call with AF; and (c) sent Defendant B with text messages around 15:02 on February 15, 2016; (b) “Defendant B had a personal contact with Defendant B at the time of election campaign” on the following grounds: (c) it appears that Defendant B had a personal contact with Defendant B at the time of election campaign; (d) it appears that Defendant B had a personal contact with Defendant B at least once on January 1, 2016; and (d) it was possible for Defendant B to individually gather Defendant B to have a personal contact with Defendant B at the time of election campaign; and (e) it appears that Defendant B had a personal contact with Defendant B at the time of election campaign at around 6: from August 2015; and (e) it appears that Defendant B had a personal contact with Defendant B at the time of election campaign.

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) Relevant legal principles

In relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, a conspiracy is not required under the law, but is limited to a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the intent is made successively or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established. Even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was a person who did not directly participate in the conduct, he/she is subject to criminal liability as a co-principal for the other co-principal, and if the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, he/she is bound to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts in such a case should be determined reasonably by the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8731, Jul. 28, 2011).

(2) Specific determination

Based on the above legal principles, the court below's proper reasoning is that the defendants and C conspired to conduct a prior election campaign is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the defendants, since the court below's findings and judgment, which are the same purport, are justified, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

① On February 21, 2016, at the Election Commission’s investigation, Defendant A stated that “I would like to agree with R other than Defendant B, and I would like to agree with Defendant B if there is a good friendship.” This shows that Defendant A requested Defendant B to arrange for a meeting in order to enhance the recognition of RR, and Defendant B received it.

② On February 15, 2016, Defendant B stated that “The Party I introduced “the Party I was a member of the Party I’s Republic of Korea to the Party I.” in the investigation by the prosecution on April 6, 2016, and May 26, 2016.” This indicates that Defendant B had the role of introducing Defendant A to the participants by arranging meetings. On the other hand, Defendant B stated that Defendant B was aware of the Party A as the executing member of the Party A.

③ From April 11, 2016 and September 5, 2016, Y, which has been in charge of the president of the Korea Senior Citizens Association in 2014, stated as follows: “In the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant B was well aware of the juvenile leading members when Y is the president of the Korea Saemaul Association branch from 1978 to 18 years, and Defendant B was involved in an election campaign for Defendant B’s election campaign.” At the last December, 201, Defendant B’s statement is consistent with the body, and the credibility thereof is high in consideration of the relationship with Defendant B. According to this, Defendant B expressed his intent to engage in an election campaign for Defendant A prior to a W restaurant meeting.

(4) C은 모임 당일 신년인사차 피고인 A를 찾아갔다가 바람이나 쐬러 가자는 피고인A의 요구에 따라 우연히 W식당 모임에 동행하였을 뿐이라고 주장한다. 그러나 ① 원심이 설시한 바와 같이 피고인 A를 위한 금품살포로 징역 1년 6월을 선고받았고, 위 판결은 항소와 상고가 기각되어 그대로 확정되었는데, 그 범죄사실에 의하면 C은 W식당 모임이 있기 전인 2015년 9월경부터 이미 피고인 A의 지지와 홍보를 부탁하며 현금을 살포하기 시작하였다. ① 나아가 C은 W식당 모임을 전후로 피고인 A와 수십 회에 걸쳐 통화하였고, 모임 이후에는 피고인 B와도 수십 회에 걸쳐 통화하였다. ) 특히 피고인 B에게 2016. 2. 5.경 "의원님 수고가 많으십니다. 내일 오후 6시까지 국회의원님 P에 자리하는데 가능하신지요?"라는 문자메시지를 보냈고, 전 Q군 출신 도의원인 BC으로부터 2016. 2. 13.경 "AD 편에 Q군 내 동장명부 군청수첩 넘김"이라는 문자메시지를 받기도 하였는데, 이는 C이 피고인 A의 선거운동에 깊숙이 개입하였음을 보여 준다. ² C은 2016. 4. 20. 검찰 조사에서부터 W식당에 갔더니 R 사람들이 있어서 깜짝 놀랐다고 진술하였는데, 이는 앞서 본 피고인 A와 C 간의 2016. 3. 13.자 통화에서 피고인 A로부터 요구받은 내용과 일치하고 있어, C의 위와 같은 진술은 피고인 A의 뜻에 따라 이루어진 것이 아닌가하는 의심마저 든다. 이러한 제반 사정에다 C을 피고인 A의 수행원으로 알았다는 피고인 B의 진술까지 더해 보면, C의 위 주장은 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 오히려 C은 W식당 모임의 목적을 알고 피고인 A를 수행하여 참석하고 식사비까지 결제한 것으로 보인다.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and the defendant A and B's allegation in this part of the appeal is without merit.

B. As to the meeting of the Senior Citizens Association

1) Whether Defendant A’s remarks related to the election (Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts)

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant argued to the same purport as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal in the lower judgment, and the lower court determined that the Defendant engaged in an election campaign by speaking at a meeting of the Senior Citizens Association to the same purport as the facts constituting an offense, in full view of the following circumstances:

① On February 6, 2016, there were Y, AP, Q, etc. at the time when the Defendant made a statement to the effect that X senior citizens were not aware of the fact at the time of his election campaign. ② The prosecution and the court below stated that the Defendant made an election like facts constituting a crime. ③ The Defendant alleged that he made a false statement to the effect that he was a competitor at the time of the election of the 19th National Assembly member, but he did not know of the fact that it was about 6th election campaign, and that he was about 8th anniversary of the fact that he was about 6th election of the 19th National Assembly member, and that he was about 6th election of the 19th National Assembly member, and that he was about 6th election of the 19th National Assembly member, and that he was about 16th election of the 19th National Assembly member at the time of the 20th election of the 19th National Assembly member. It was difficult to view that the Defendant was about 26th National Assembly member.

B) The judgment of this Court

In light of the following circumstances that the court below properly adopted and examined, the court below's finding of facts and determination of the court below, which is the same purport, are justified, since the defendant could sufficiently have made a statement as stated in the court below's decision, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, as alleged by the defendant.

① At the prosecutorial investigation and court below’s court, Y had 6-7 persons who included the lower time at the time, but other persons were mash and the head of the low-level X-section AP had a major conversation with the Defendant. The Defendant first saw the Defendant on the day. The Defendant and the National Assembly member of N, “A” had been engaged in personnel management in going out of the election at this time, and distributed a daily good and good order. The Defendant was a 3 military academy, and the National Assembly was going to go through the 3th military academy, and a large number of farmers for the sake of the National Assembly. At the time of winning the election. The X-level was well-known and the 1/3 of the population of the R group, and the X residents were only tight, and the N population did not appear to have been prepared to supplement the total of Q, P and R population and did not have any record to the extent that it was consistent.”

② As alleged by the Defendant, Y is placed on the part of the Defendant’s candidate for the intra-party competition. If Y is a hostile relationship with the Defendant, Y was present and made a statement at the request of the investigation agency in charge of the case immediately after the arrival of the report, etc., Y only later. Furthermore, Y’s statement is high credibility as Y’s statement is made for the same purpose as Y.

③ On the fourth trial of the lower court, Q introduced the Defendant as “B’s first day.” On the fourth trial of the lower court, Q stated that “B introduced the Defendant as “N Assembly member A,” and distributed the Defendant’s daily malicious and well-known names, and that “R, Q, and P are small to the extent that the most population was X, thereby having been the highest population.” The A Q’s statement also conforms with the statements of specific, Y, and AP.

2) Whether to conduct a prior election campaign (the defendant's assertion of legal principles)

A) The judgment of the court below

Defendant A argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court determined that Defendant A’s act of distributing the name of Defendant A by taking account of the following circumstances constitutes an advance election campaign, which is necessary and favorable for obtaining voting for the election of the 20th National Assembly member and for the purpose of election:

① Defendant A was able to become a single local constituency for the National Assembly member due to the combination of R region and N region through press reports, etc., and the election of the National Assembly member was sought in R at the time of approximately two months after the election of the National Assembly member. ② Defendant A received the introduction with Defendant B, which is the Do to become a local constituency for R, and Defendant A met the members of the Korean Senior Citizens Association in X-Myeon. ③ Defendant A was able to receive the introduction with Defendant B. Defendant A, who was in charge of the branch of the Korean Senior Citizens Association in such circumstances, issued a name to senior citizens and made a statement related to election as stated in the crime.

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) Relevant legal principles

“Election campaign” refers to an act that can be objectively recognized by the intention of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election. Determination of such act ought to be made on the basis of the specific situation at the time of the act, not by an internal intent, but by an internal intent of the person in charge of the pertinent act. From the perspective of a State agency or a legal expert, determination should be made based on the specific situation at the time of the act, in particular, from the perspective of the general public and the elector’s point of view. As such, whether an elector who experienced the act at issue rather than closely analyzing the organic relationship between the act or emphasizing legal meaning and effect, can be identified as having the intention of such act in the situation at the time of the act. The above purpose is not only the express method by which the elector asks for support by expressing his intention to participate in a specific election, but also the case where the act can easily be inferred from the perspective of the elector’s point of view in view of the objective situation at the time of the election. Whether the act with such intention is a mere act, but also the time, place and method of the act should be determined depending on the election day.

In light of the fact that even the same act can be perceived differently from the elector’s perspective as to the relevant election, there is an intention to promote the election or defeat in the relevant election through other objective circumstances, even without express expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do1812, Aug. 26, 2016).

(2) Specific determination

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as appropriate, i.e., the number of members of the Korea Senior Citizens Association X-Myeon branch of the Korea Senior Citizens Association was approximately 1,600, and Y was in charge of the president of the Korea Senior Citizens Association. As Defendant A was well-founded reasons to appeal Y for the election of National Assembly members for 2 months and Y for the election of the senior citizens. ② Defendant A was recommended to contact the senior citizens center prior to this, but was planned to leave Y from AR with Defendant B in advance, and was planned to leave Y. In particular, the senior citizens center was the most X population at the senior citizens center and Y et al., to find out that the Defendants did not have any unlawful purpose of finding that the Defendants did not have any error in the law since there was a clear understanding that the Defendants did not have any legitimate purpose in terms of the law, including the fact-finding and distribution of the population, QR group, and the election.

3) Whether Defendant B conspired (Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle)

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant argued to the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court fully aware that the Defendant was able to conduct an election campaign, such as distributing A’s name to find X-Myeon Senior Community Center and speaking related to the election, taking into account the following circumstances, and aiding and abetting it:

In addition, it was determined that X-Myeon community center was found.

The Defendant, as a member of the R regional Do Council, was practically trying to elect a member of the National Assembly in the R area A. ② The Defendant arranged a cafeteria meeting, and even thereafter, carried out an election campaign at the time of the call with A at any time. ③ The election of the National Assembly members of the 20th National Assembly was not set. ④ The fact that the R area was combined with the N area and could become a single constituency for the National Assembly member was being a public debate through various channels, such as newspapers and news reports. ⑤ The Defendant introduced the elderly members of the Y area along with A, and introduced A as N local National Assembly members, distributed A’s name, and followed the election-related remarks.

B) The judgment of this Court

In light of the following circumstances, the court below properly explained by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, that is, the defendant visited A with the President of the RW under the contact that "I will visit the President of the RW at the time from the preceding day," and that the defendant knew that A is a senior group of the AC to which A belongs on the day of the meeting and recommended A to join a senior group, and notified A and accompanied C of the address and telephone number of the EG restaurant at the meeting place, and even before A visits the senior citizen meeting, it can be recognized that the defendant conspired with A to commit the crime, and therefore, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, which are the same purport, is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as argued by the defendant.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and the defendant A and B's allegation in this part of the appeal disputing misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

1) The judgment of the court below

In the lower court, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court first acknowledged the following facts.

「① AC Z면 종친회의 회장 AA은 2016. 2. 14. R군 선거관리위원회에서 “이 개최일시 : 2016. 1. 8. 내지 9.경 11:00, ○ 개최장소 : AX(Z면), O A 국회의원 참석 경위 및 발언내용 등 ㉠ 확실하지는 않지만 NRP 3개 시군이 한 지역으로 될 것으로 설명, ㉡ 여론조사 시 저를 (A) 지지해 줄 것을 부탁, ㉢ 선거법을 고려하여 중식도 먹지 못하고 자리를 떠났음”이라는 내용의 확인서를 작성하였다. ② AA은 2016. 3. 24. 검찰 조사에서, ㉠ 모임 날짜와 관련하여 “날짜를 적어 놓은 게 없어서 잘 모르겠다.", “선관위에서 모임 날짜를 1월 8일로 파악하고 있다면 1월 8일이 맞을 것이다."는 취지로, ㉡ 피고인의 언동과 관련하여 “피고인이 방에 들어와 'N의 국회의원 A입니다, 일가 분들을 이제야 찾아뵙게 되었습니다.'라면서 큰절을 하였고, 일어난 상태에서 '이번에 N하고 R 지역하고 선거구가 통합될 것 같은데, 만일 그렇게 되면 여론조사할 때 저를 지지한다고 대답을 좀 해주시고, 많이 좀 도와주십시오.' 라는 말을 하였다.”, “피고인이 자리에 앉지는 않고 바쁘다고 하면서 '저희가 여기 있으면 일가 분들에게 폐를 끼치게 됩니다. '라면서 황급히 떠났다.”고 진술하였다. ③ 종친회원 AB은 2016. 3. 29. 수사기관과의 통화에서 “AX에서 개최된 종친회 모임에서 피고인을 만났다.”는 취지로 진술하였다. ④ 종친회 청년회장 AS은 2016.3.31. 검찰 조사에서, ㉠ 모임 날짜와 관련하여 “AX에서 개최된 종친회 모임에 참석한 적이 있는데, 그 모임일이 1월 8일인지는 정확히 기억하지 못하겠다.”는 취지로, ㉡ 당시 피고인의 언동 등과 관련하여 “진술인이 11시경 식당에 도착하여 30분 내지 40분 정도 다른 사람들과 이야기를 하고 있을 때 피고인이 식당에 들어왔다.”, “피고인은 N 국회의원 A입니다, 일가 분들을 이제야 찾아뵙게 되었습니다, 죄송합니다.'라면서 큰절을 하였고, 자기소개를 하였다.”, “피고인은 ‘오래 머물면 안 된다, 큰일 난다'고 말하면서 한 10분 정도 잠깐 있다가 갔다.”는 취지로 진술하였다. ⑤ 종친회원 AT은 2016. 3. 31. 검찰 조사에서 피고인이 참석한 모임에 가지 않았다고 진술하면서 다만 “2015.12.인지 2016. 1. 인지 기억이 나지 않지만 AX에서 종친회원 중 일부가 모였던 적이 있고 진술인이 그 자리에 참석하였는데, 당시 AS이 ‘같은 일가인 피고인이 국회의원에 출마했다. 피고인이 조만간 우리 종친회를 방문할 것이다.'라는 말을 하였다.”고 진술하였다. ⑥ 한편 수사기관에서는 피고인이 2016. 1. 9. 18:00경 AS과 두 차례에 걸쳐 합계 10분 정도 통화를 하고, 이어서 ASI AC 종친회원들 여러 명에게 전화를 하고 AX에도 전화한 내역을 확보하였다. ⑦) 그 이후 AS은 2016. 5. 24. 검찰 조사에서 피고인과 통화한 사실은 기억에 없다고 하면서도 다만 종친회원를 여러 명에게 전화를 한 것은 누군가로부터 피고인이 종친회 모임에 온다는 말을 듣고 종친 회원들에게 참석해달라는 말을 하기 위해서였다고 진술하였고, “피고인이 처음 오기로 한 오지 않아 종친회원들이 그대로 헤어졌고, 다음에 다시 피고인이 모임에 참석하였다.”는 진술을 하였고, 그 날짜에 관하여는 이를 정확히 기억하지 못하면서도 다만 위 2016. 1. 9.의 전화 통화 내역 등으로 미루어 처음 오기로 한 날은 2016. 1. 9.이고 실제 온 날은 2016. 1. 10.0이 아니겠냐는 취지로 진술하였다. ④ AA, AB, AS은 2017. 1. 12. 원심 법정에 출석하여 증언하였는데, 먼저 AA은 ㉠ 모임 날짜와 관련하여 “피고인이 온다는전화를 받고 나갔는데, 피고인이 오지 않았다. 그 다음에 피고인이 또 온다고 하여 나가보니 그 때는 피고인이 왔다.”, “정확한 날짜는 선거관리위원회 및 수사기관에서 진술할 때도 정확히 기억나지 않았고 지금도 마찬가지이다.”라는 취지로, ㉡ 당시 피고인 A의 언동 등과 관련하여 대체로 수사기관에서 진술한 내용과 같은 취지로 진술하였다. AB은 모임 날짜와 관련하여 “피고인이 종친회에 참석한 날은 1월 14일이다. 진술인이 농사를 지으면서 매일 일기를 쓰는데, 그 일기에 그렇게 기재되어 있다.”, “모임 전날 휴대전화로 AS의 연락을 받고 모임에 참석하게 된 것이다.”라고 진술하였다. AS은 그 모임 날짜와 관련하여 “피고인은 첫 번째 온다고 한 날에는 안 왔고, 두 번째 온다고 한 날 왔다.”, “피고인이 온 날은 수사기관에서 진술할 때도 그렇고 지금도 그렇고 정확하게 기억나지 않는다. 진술인이 수사기관에서 먼저 날짜를 특정하여 진술한 것은 아니다.

(4) On January 10, 2016, when the Defendant appeared to have attended AB meetings, the Defendant appears to have been present at the first meeting of 3 to 4 days, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “I would like to know whether I would like to be the chairperson of the young gathering,” and that “I would like to know I would like to have been present at the meeting of 1 hour. I would like to say I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not have been present at the meeting. I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not have been present at the meeting. I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not have been present at the meeting.

2) The judgment of this Court

The circumstances indicated by the court below are as follows. The purport of the alternative statement of family members, such as AA, by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below is as follows: although the specific date is not memory, the defendant did not enter the first day but appeared at the next meeting; and the call record is that the defendant sent a call to AS, which is the director of the young adult association, around 18:13 on January 9, 2016, and around 19:43 on the same day, AS was called to AB, around 19:47, around 19:59, around AX, around 07:41, and around 07:41, it appears that the defendant was unable to attend the meeting, and that the defendant was not aware of the credibility of the statement made by the chairperson of the court below as well as the fact-finding at around 19:42 on the next day, and it appears that the defendant was not aware of the fact-finding by the chairperson of the court below, and that the defendant was not aware of the defendant's status of AB.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

D. Regarding illegal election campaigns recruited with AD

1) Whether there is a public contest with AD

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant argued to the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that the Defendant, based on the following circumstances, was able to recognize that the Defendant had carried out an election campaign by means of telephone at the time when the primary election is imminent, either explicitly or implicitly agreed with AD, by means of telephone:

F. ① From Jan. 2016 to Mar. 1, 2016, AD had a number of calls with the Defendant and text messages. In the case of text messages, the Defendant had two organizations of BH (BI), QJK, and Qu-friendly regions. First of all, the Defendant’s election campaign activities were carried out by the Defendant at least 1,000-day, including “BL-type and telephone call,” and the Defendant’s contact with Qu-type people. In the case of telephone calls, the Defendant had no more than 1,000-day, and the Defendant had no more than 2,000-day election campaign. The Defendant had no more than 2,000-day election campaign. The Defendant had no more than 3,000-day election campaign. The Defendant had no more than 2,000-day election campaign.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below after comparing it with the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law as alleged by the defendant.

2) Whether the primary election, which is a public opinion poll method, is applied

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant has discussed this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, as to this point, determined that: (a) in the event that the political party conducts the intra-party competition (including the public opinion poll replacing the intra-party competition that is conducted by the party constitution, regulations or a written agreement among the candidates) under Article 57-2 (1), any person who is not elected as a candidate for the relevant political party shall not be registered as a candidate for the same election in the same constituency of the relevant election; (b) the fact that the intra-party competition falls under the intra-party competition as provided in the Public Official Election Act; and (c) the fact that the intra-party competition falls under the intra-party competition as provided in the Public Official Election Act; (d) the fact that the intra-party competition is established by the partial amendment of Act No. 13 and 755 on January 15, 2016, the lower court determined that the so-called number of candidates for the intra-party competition (the number of candidates generated by the mobile phone number of candidates) is also subject to restrictions on the intra-party competition campaign under Article 57.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. As to the cafeteria group

1) The Defendants’ violation of the Act on Contribution

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendants are recruited to offer meals to the residents of the RGun in order to raise the guidance of Defendant A who wishes to become the candidates for the 20th National Assembly members of the RGun. On January 1, 2016, Defendant B visited nine residents of the RGun, including U, to gather them into the cafeteria that they promised to do, and Defendant A provided meals with the said nine persons at the above restaurant, and Defendant A provided them with the said nine persons, and I will come first to the National Assembly member A. Although the electoral district has not yet been yet determined, I will come back to the National Assembly member once again. The Defendant C, at the above restaurant, would be 163,00 won for meal expenses, and Defendant A provided meals to those who want to be the candidates, and Defendant B and C made a contribution act for Defendant B and C in the above way.

B) The judgment of the court below

The "contribution act" under Article 112 (1) of the former Public Official Election Act is premised on the existence of a specific constituency with legal effect. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision on October 30, 2014 that "the list of the first election district for the National Assembly members in Article 25 (2) of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012) is not in conformity with the Constitution, and the above list of the election district for the National Assembly members is still applicable until the legislative amendment was made on December 31, 2015 (see Constitutional Court Order 2012Hun-Ma192, Oct. 10, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2012Hun-Ma192, Oct. 31, 2015) that "the above regional election district for the National Assembly members did not confirm a new election district for the National Assembly members by December 31, 2015, not guilty the Defendants' act of offering the remaining meal district.

C) The judgment of this Court

Article 112(1) of the former Public Official Election Act provides that "The term "contribution act" means an act of offering money, goods, or other property benefits to a person in the constituency concerned, an institution, an organization, a facility, or an elector, or an act outside the constituency concerned, or an act of offering such benefits, even if such person, organization, or facility is located." The following acts are restricted to a contribution act of a candidate (Article 113), a contribution act of a political party and a candidate's family member (Article 114), and a third party's contribution act (Article 115). It is reasonable to punish a person who has made a contribution in violation of Article 257(1). In this context, the term "person who has an address or abode within the constituency concerned" as well as a person who has a temporary residence within the constituency, and the term "person who has an election district with the electoral relation" as provided in Table 2 of the former Public Official Election Act, but it is not possible to directly or indirectly establish an election district for the National Assembly member in question.

Based on these legal principles, a thorough examination of the records of this case is justified in the judgment of the court below that found the main public prosecution or the defendant not guilty, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2) Defendants’ purchase and inducement for understanding

A) Summary of this part of the conjunctive charges

The Defendants committed the act as described in the summary of the facts charged above, and Defendant A provided meals to the voters for the purpose of getting Defendant B and C elected in the election of the 20th National Assembly member.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the ancillary charges in full view of the following circumstances:

Article 230(1)1 of the former Public Official Election Act provides that an elector (including persons eligible to enter the electoral registry or the electoral registry before preparation of the electoral registry or the electoral registry of overseas electors) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won, and that such purchase and interest inducement should be premised on the existence of a specific election district having legal effect in order to determine who is eligible for entry in the elector or electoral registry. However, since the Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, since January 1, 2016, the Defendants’ act of purchasing money or election campaigning for more than 30 million won is likely to be carried out for the first time to be carried out by the elector’s electoral registry or the electoral registry of overseas electors, etc., and that the Defendants’ act of purchasing money or election campaigning for more than 10 million won on the same day constitutes an act of offering money or election campaigning for more than 10 percent of the former Public Official Election Act.

C) The judgment of this Court

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below after comparing it with the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. The publication of Defendant A’s false facts

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

On December 2015, the Defendant entered 'BPP Q Q Q QA airfield to the BR shooting range' on the promotional materials of ‘Report on parliamentary activities' from N Si to N Si in 2016, and distributed it to the citizens as if there was a proposal to transfer it to the BPP AF airfield to the BR shooting range.

However, there was no transfer of the BPP Q Q2 air airfield to the BR shooting range, and there was no fact that the Ministry of National Defense and the Air Force Headquarters reviewed the transfer of the BR shooting range to the BR shooting range or discussed the issue as the defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant published false facts about his act in favor of the candidate through a propaganda document for the purpose of being elected.

2) The judgment of the court below

The court below acknowledged the following facts first.

「① 군 공항 이전사업을 원활하게 시행할 목적으로 2013, 4. 5. 법률 제11,733호로 군 공항 이전 및 지원에 관한 특별법(이하 '군공항이전법'이라 한다)이 제정되었다. ② BP시는 2013년경 군공항이전법에 따라 국방부장관에게 BP BQ 공군비행장 이전건의서를 제출하였고, 국방부는 2013, 4.경부터 T 모든 지역을 대상으로 BQ 공군비행장 단독이전후보지 선정을 위한 연구용역(이하 ‘단독이 전안에 대한 용역'이라 한다)을 시작하였다. ③ 국방부는 BQ 공군비행장 이전에 필요한 부지를 대략 300만 평 정도로 예상하고 있었는데, 국방부는 BR 평야 지역에 위치한 군사격장(이하 'BR 사격장'이라 한다) 부근에 약 250만 평의 부지를 소유하고 있었다. ④ 수십 년간 군에서 복무한 피고인은 위와 같은 부지 등의 현황을 고려할 때 경우에 따라 BQ 공군비행장이 국방부가 이미 상당한 부지를 소유하고 있는 BR 사격장 부근으로 이전되는 것으로 결정될 수 있다는 우려를 갖고, 이를 사전에 방지하는 차원에서 2013. 3. 8. 국방부장관 후보자 인사청문회, 2013. 4. 4. 국방부 업무보고, 2013. 10. 11. 합동참모본부 후보자 인사청 문회 등에서 지속적으로 BQ 공군비행장을 BR 사격장 등이 위치한 평야 지역이 아닌 산악 지역으로 이전하는 방안을 적극 검토할 것을 요청하였고, 이후 후속 조치 및 연구가 이루어지고, 있는지에 관하여 확인하였으며, 이에 따라 국방부에서는 BQ 공군비행장을 산악 지역으로 이전하는 방안을 실제 검토 연구하여 피고인에게 보고한 적이 있다. ⑤ 한편 피고인은 BS 공군비행장과 관련하여 2014. 3.경 활주로 증설계획이 국방개혁기본계획에 반영되는 등의 사정을 파악하였다. 이에 피고인은 군사기지 및 군사시설보호법, 공군시설계획기준에 따른 공군비행장간 이격 기준거리가 32km인데 BR 사격장과 BS 공군비행장의 거리가 그보다 짧은 26km이므로, BS 공군비행장의 확장사업이 진행되는 것이 확실해질 경우 BQ 공군비행장이 BR. 사격장 부지로 이전되는 것은 사실상 불가능하여 질 것이라고 생각하고, 국방부장관 등에게 BS 공군비행장 확장에 대한 관심을 표하면서 향후 BT공항 이전까지 염두에 두고 BS 공군비행장 증설 및 시설배치 등을 적극 검토하여 줄 것을 요청하였다. ⑥ 그리고 2014. 7.경 합동참모회의에서 BS 공군 비행장 복수활주로 건설 예산을 4,955억 원으로 정하는 장기소요 결정이 있었고, 2015. 9.경에는 그에 관한 연구용역까지 시작되었다. ⑦ 이러한 상황에서 피고인은 2015. 12.경 3가지 크기로 구성한 의정활동홍보물 3종 세트를 제작하여 N 지역 주민들에게 배포하였다. 위 홍보물 3종 세트 중 가장 작은 크기의 브로슈어 형식 홍보물(A4 용지 반 정도 크기의 인쇄물 1장이 3단으로 접힌 형태, 이하 '이 사건 홍보물'이라 한다)은 총 6면으로 구성되어 있는데, 그 중 한면에 ‘BP BQ 공군비행장 BR 사격장으로의 이전(안) 백지화'라는 문구가 기재되어 있다. ⑧ BQ 공군비행장 단독이전안은 2013. 4.경 시작된 용역이 시작된 후 내·외부적으로 추가적 진행이 이루어지지 않고 있던 중 2016. 7.경 정부의 방침에 따라 BQ 공군비행장과 BT 공항을 함께 이전하는 BU 공항 통합이전으로 그 방향이 변경되었다. ④ 그리고 국방부는 2016. 7.경 통합이 전 검토를 위한 용역(이하 '통합이전안에 대한 용역'이라 한다)을 시작하여 1단계 예비이전후 보지 32곳 중 공역(군공항간 이격 거리), 장애물, 소음 등을 검토하여 2단계 예비이전후보지 8곳을 선정하였는데, N 지역은 공역과 소음 요건에서 부적격 판정을 받아 2단계 예비이전후보지에 포함되지 않았다. 10 한편 2015, 2.경부터 군 공항 이전에 관한 업무를 담당하는 BV과를 총괄하는 국방부 BW실장으로 재직하고 있는 BX는 원심 법정에서, 2015. 12.경 무렵 국방부에서 N를 BQ 공군비행장 이전 대상지에서 명확히 제외하는 의사결정을 한 바는 없지만, 공역 기준, BS 공군비행장 확장 등의 사정을 상식적으로 고려할 때 BQ 공군비행장을 BR 사격장으로 옮기는 것은 불가능한 것이었다고 생각한다는 의견을 피력하였다. 」

Then, taking into account the following circumstances, the lower court is promoting a plan to expand the size of KRW 50 billion on “BS airfield” rather than that “the Defendant considered to have no relocation plan for the BS airfield to the BS airfield shooting range.”

In fact, the term "bold air air airfield," which has a statement that it will be transferred to a BR shooting range, seems to be somewhat exaggerated in the process of clearly expressing such meaning. It was determined that the term "bather" or "batherizing" seems to have been somewhat exaggerated in the process of clearly expressing such meaning.

① The promotional materials of this case are composed of a total of 6 pages in the form of blosobs with a small size of the hand floor. Among them, the main contents of “the development into five roads, traffic impulses,” “the extension of inland high-speed railroads,” and “the expansion of a BS airport” are as follows: ② However, in the case of N-BY highways, indicated in the items “five networks and traffic congestions,” the plan was established and is under way before the defendant becomes a member of the National Assembly; and in the case of inland high-speed railroads, the plan was established in 2006, stating that the “the promotion of the expansion of the BS airport” is also the main contents of “the expansion of the BS airport,” and it is difficult to understand that the Defendant is leading to the expansion of the BS airport. In other words, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view the above plan as being implemented by the Defendant to the extent that it does not have been implemented in the vicinity of the 200th air base.”

① Following the enactment of the Military Airport Act on April 5, 2013 and the proposal of the relocation of the BP air base to BP, the Ministry of National Defense proposed the relocation of the BP airfield to the BP. However, it is natural to view that the BP airfield had a site of approximately 2,50,00 square meters in the vicinity of the BP airfield. Accordingly, the Ministry of National Defense could not take into account the fact that the BP airfield had been located in the 20-year air base before the relocation of the BP airfield to the 20-year air base. However, the Ministry of National Defense could not take into account the fact that the BP airfield had been located in the 20-year air base before the relocation of the BP airfield to the 20-year air base to the 20-year air base. However, the Ministry of National Defense could not take into account the fact that the BP airfield had been located in the 20-year air base to the 20-year air base before the relocation of the BP airfield.

3) The judgment of this Court

The circumstances indicated by the lower court are as follows: (a) the relocation of an airport under the Military Airport Relocation Act under the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court goes through the selection process of the relocation candidate site through the deliberation of the Selection Committee for the Military Airport Relocation Site; (b) since the promotional materials of this case were at the stage of evaluation and examination for all areas within the Do at the time of distribution of the promotional materials of this case, N area cannot be deemed explicitly excluded from the relocation candidate site; (c) the Defendant continued to request the National Defense Committee EH of the National Assembly to exclude the residents from the relocation candidate site due to noise for more than 60 years; (d) the Defendant’s request for the relocation of the airport under the Military Airport Relocation Act was submitted by the local government; (e) the evaluation and examination of the relocation candidate site; and (e) the selection of the relocation candidate site through the deliberation of the Selection Committee for the Military Airport Relocation Site Relocation Site; and (e) the Defendant’s participation in the process of this case’s discovery of the fact-finding and the Defendant’s participation in the scope of QF as it did not err.

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

4. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing against the Defendants A, B, and the Prosecutor

A. Examining the various sentencing conditions of this case against Defendant A, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the number of the residents who contacted the Defendant at the cafeteria, the Senior Citizens Association, and the clan gathering; (b) the number of the residents who requested AD to support was not large; (c) the Defendant’s wife was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money and valuables related to election campaign and the violation of the Act on the Election of National Assembly members in relation to the 20th election of National Assembly members; (d) the election of the Defendant becomes null and void by being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years; (e) the Defendant appears to have faithfully performed parliamentary activities as the 19th

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in collusion with the unregistered election campaigners to request support and publicity by holding the 20th National Assembly members election and attending the 20th National Assembly members election and requesting support by attending meetings of Wcafeterias, Senior Citizens Association, and relatives association meetings on three occasions, and the crime of this case is committed in collusion with the unregistered election campaigners for requesting support and publicity by telephone. In light of the details, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime is not less complicated, in particular, in violation of the Public Official Election Act, which is to prevent the malpractice in the election as active National Assembly member and in the intraparty competition, even though it is strictly observed, it is against the defendant's unfavorable circumstances.

As above, comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc. In addition, the lower court appears to have rendered a fine of KRW 80,00,00 within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines (a fine of KRW 700,000 or KRW 3250,00), taking account of these factors of sentencing, and the lower court’

In addition to the fact that there is no change in the circumstances or circumstances, the sentence imposed by the court below is acceptable as it is within the appropriate scope of punishment depending on the defendant's responsibility, and it is not recognized as being too heavy or unreasonable because it is too heavy.

The defendant and prosecutor's grounds of appeal disputing unfair sentencing are without merit.

B. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case with respect to Defendant B, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the fact relevance in the instant case appears to be recognized as a substitute and reflected in the case; and (b) the Defendant did not engage in an election campaign, such as arranging or guiding the cafeteria and the Senior Citizens Association meetings for Defendant A, and not directly requesting support; (c) the degree of participation is relatively insignificant; (d) the number of residents contacted by A is not so large; (e) there is no same power; and (e) there is no Do Council member, and (e) it appears that the Defendant was faithfully engaged in parliamentary activities.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant in collusion with A to arrange a cafeteria meeting and accompanied by a meeting of the Senior Citizens Association to conduct an advance election campaign. The crime of this case is not easy in light of the details and methods of the crime, the number of times, etc., and even if a member of the TDo Council is obligated to understand the purpose of the Public Official Election Act and comply with it, it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

As above, the defendant's age, career, character and environment, family relation, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered comprehensively. In addition, the court below appears to have sentenced to a fine of KRW 600,000,00 by escaping from the lower limit of the recommended range (a fine of KRW 700,000 or KRW 2250,000) set forth in the sentencing guidelines in consideration of the two factors of the punishment, and even if there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below in the trial, the sentence imposed by the court below is acceptable in light of the defendant's liability within the proper scope of the punishment according to the defendant's liability, and it is not recognized that it is too heavy or unreasonable.

All the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor disputing unfair sentencing are without merit. Examining the various sentencing conditions in this case against Defendant C, the Defendant appears to be a substitute and reflective fact-finding, the Defendant did not engage in an election campaign, such as paying meal costs by accompanying with A, but not appeal for direct support, there are circumstances that may be considered as participating in the crime due to a long-term relationship with A, the equity with the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act at the same time as the judgment of the lower court becomes final and conclusive, and the fact that there is no other criminal record other than the previous conviction in the lower judgment is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant in collusion with A and B in advance at a cafeteria meeting. The crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant in light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act.

In addition, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc.; and (b) the lower court appears to have rendered a fine of KRW 500,000 to the Defendant to whom the sentencing guidelines do not apply, and even if there is no special change in circumstances or circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court in the trial, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant is acceptable within the reasonable scope of punishment in accordance with the Defendant’s liability; and (c) it is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by Defendant A and B and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That all of the criminal facts of the judgment below are stated in the judgment below, and a speech and a broadcast for the purpose of being elected or going to be elected.

A false fact shall not be published with respect to the family relation, status, occupation, career, property, act, organization to which he/she belongs, etc. of a candidate, his/her spouse, lineal ascendants or descendants, or siblings, in favor of the candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) by means of newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or any other means. The phrase " shall not publish false facts with respect to the family relation, status, occupation, career, etc. of the candidate, property, act, organization to which he/she belongs, etc." is irrelevant to the criminal facts recognized as guilty under Article 250

Application to the presiding judge;

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judge Doo

1) It is referred to as “W cafeteria group” as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.

2) For the Defendant who falls under the pertinent item, the name of the Defendant is omitted and the Defendant is called the Defendant.

3) Criminal facts No. 2 as indicated in the judgment below, and hereinafter referred to as the "groups of the Korean Senior Citizens Association".

4) Criminal facts No. 3-a. (a) of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and a group of relatives' gathering.

5) Criminal facts No. 3-b. of the judgment of the court below

6) On February 22, 2017, the Defendant’s defense counsel stated “in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing” as the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal submitted on February 22, 2017.

After the expiration of this period, on April 3, 2017, the grounds for appeal submitted on April 3, 2017 stated erroneous facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing as grounds for appeal, and the first instance court judgment

The Court explicitly withdraws the assertion of mistake of facts on the trial date, and argued only the misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing grounds as grounds for appeal.

Although an appeal is filed after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, it does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal, it will be examined ex officio.

7) Defendant A stated in this Court that Defendant A was the Defendant at an ordinary meeting of the Senior Citizens Association held at the end of March 2016, 2016, on the premise that Defendant A stated that Defendant A was “A.”

Although Y argues that it is a general meeting of the Elderly, Y is memory of Defendant A at the sports meeting of the X-Myeon Youth Association around March 2016 at the court of the original trial.

In addition, at the time of the general meeting of the elderly society, Defendant A testified to the effect that it was not until the elderly Council.

8) The election district for the 20th National Assembly member was finalized on March 3, 2016, and later on February 6, 2016, and around March 2016.