A. misunderstanding of legal principles

Article 36(1) of the Political Funds Act provides that only a person in charge of accounting shall take charge of the execution of political funds, and where it is inevitable to provide assistance, an assistant in charge of accounting entrusted by the person in charge of accounting in writing may assist the person in charge of accounting. Thus, the Defendants’ act of Defendant 1, who is not the person in charge of accounting, in collusion from April 4, 2006 to May 16, 2006, without obtaining a written delegation from Defendant 2, who is the person in charge of accounting, and paying election expenses by means of account transfer through the Internet banking, constitutes a crime in violation of the above provision. However, the lower court acquitted Defendant 1 on the ground that the above act is merely an assistant in charge of Defendant 2, who is the person in charge of accounting, and thus, the above act should be deemed the act of Defendant 2. In so determining, the lower court

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the facts charged above, the court below's finding Defendant 1 guilty, and in light of the contents of the crime of this case where election expenses were paid by means not provided for in the Political Funds Act, and the necessity of strict group for this, etc., if the court below is sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000, and a fine of KRW 800,000 on the crime of Articles 1 and 2 of the facts charged in the court below's holding, and a fine of KRW 300,000 on the crime of paragraphs 3

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

The gist of this part of the facts charged by the prosecutor disputing the legal principles is that “Defendant 1, not the person in charge of accounting, conspireds with the defendant from April 4, 2006 to May 16, 2006, disbursed election expenses of KRW 5,213,560 by means of Internet banking.”

In light of the main sentence and proviso of Article 36(1) of the Political Funds Act, Article 39 of the same Act, and Article 35(3) of the Rules on the Management of Political Fund Affairs, the court below found Defendant 1 not guilty on the ground that Defendant 2, an accountant in charge of accounting, takes charge of the overall process of paying political funds, since the disbursement of political funds that a person in charge of accounting should delegate to an assistant in charge of accounting in writing, based on the following evidence: (a) Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting, takes the act of incurring expenditures, such as sale and lease, and takes the receipt and other documentary evidence in the election office; and (b) Defendant 1 remitted the amount of documentary evidence, such as receipt, etc., from the deposit account of Defendant 2, by means of account transfer from the Internet banking, from the Internet bank account; and (c) it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1, a person in charge of accounting, was

(2) The judgment of this Court

Article 36 (1) of the Political Funds Act provides that "The revenue and expenditure of the political funds of the candidate for public office and the preliminary candidate for public office may be made only by the person in charge of accounting: Provided, That this shall not apply where an assistant in charge of accounting who is delegated by the person in charge of accounting in writing with the scope of the purpose and amount to the extent that the details of the disbursement can be identified." The above provision provides that only the person in charge of accounting shall take charge of the execution of the political funds in order to secure transparency by disclosing the revenue and expenditure of the political funds and prevent related malpractice, and that the person in charge of accounting may have an assistant in charge of the accounting within the limited scope of the receipt and payment. Thus, even if the person who is not in charge of accounting has disbursed the political funds without the delegation pursuant to the proviso to the above provision, the assistant in charge of accounting cannot be exempted from punishment for violation of the above provision. However, even under the proviso to the above provision, the assistant in charge of accounting is delegated with the duty of paying the political funds within the scope of the revenue and expenditure discretion of the assistant in accordance with the above provision 1).

However, according to the records of this case, when Defendant 2 registered as a candidate for the election of the member of the local council of Won-si, which was implemented on May 31, 2006 and registered as a candidate for the election campaign, and registered as a candidate for the election campaign, and asked Defendant 1 of high school-friendly compulsory appearance to assist himself/herself in obtaining the Internet banking method. Defendant 1 who received the above request from April 4, 2006 to May 18, 2006, in order for Defendant 2 to assist him/her to purchase and sell, lease, etc., and take the receipt and other documentary evidence, the act of Defendant 2's act is merely a complete evaluation of Defendant 2's act, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize that Defendant 2's act of transferring money recorded in documentary evidence, such as receipts, etc., from the deposit account of Defendant 2, which was reported as a deposit account for receiving and disbursing political funds from the competent election commission by using the computer of Defendant 2 in the above election office.

Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty on the grounds that there is no proof of crime for this part of the facts charged is justified, and it cannot be viewed that there is a misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

As seen earlier, the facts charged in the judgment of the court below that the prosecutor did not constitute an offense for the same reason, and the election expenses paid therefrom are limited to small amounts, and the circumstances of each crime are somewhat considered. The crime of paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below seems to be due to the defendants' failure to properly understand the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the meaning of Internet banking. In addition, considering the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, the punishment of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable, in light of various sentencing conditions in this case, such as the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (However, since each "defendant's associate prize" in the 6th and 7th of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error of "defendant 1", the prosecutor's appeal shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)