beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed against A, B, C, D and Prosecutor A, B, and E are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment of Defendant A (2 million won of fine) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the advance election campaign, provided information on his election campaign as a member of the mountain conference or introduced his position as a general official, but cannot be deemed to have been engaged in an advance election campaign by asserting support from voters in the election. On a different premise, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (hereinafter “Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials”).
Although the court below decided a punishment by respecting the jury's sentencing opinion in accordance with the purpose of the citizen participation trial system, unlike the sentencing opinion presented by majority of jurors, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Act on the Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials.
3) The lower court’s sentence (one million won of a fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable and unfair. (c) The petition of appeal submitted by Defendant C, Defendant D, and D’s counsel on May 3, 2019 includes “in fact-finding and unfair sentencing” as the grounds for appeal; however, the above petition of appeal does not contain any information on the grounds for mistake of facts or specific details, and there was no submission of the statement of reasons for appeal within the period for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal, so the grounds for appeal by the above Defendants are limited to unfair sentencing. Each of the lower court’s punishments against the above Defendants (500,000 won of each fine) are too unreasonable. D. (1) The prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts (the part in the original judgment) and the fact that the Defendant related to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the Defendant’s contribution act did not receive the amount of one book from S (the Defendant’s electorate) and the investigation agency itself consistent with it.