number of

Attorney in charge C

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

【Criminal Power】

On June 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months, additional collection 281, 413, and 430 won in the Ulsan District Court for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the judgment was finalized on April 12, 2016.

[Criminal Facts] D is a candidate or winner of the E-Si Office of Education, which was implemented on June 2, 2010, and the defendant is a person who was the fourth degree of Do resident and was in charge of accounting in the election campaign office of the pertinent superintendent of education D related to the election of the pertinent superintendent of education.

1. Violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act and fraud related to printing expenses;

The Defendant and D received a contract and tax invoice from the printing company with respect to the printing cost related to the E-Si Office of Education, which was implemented on June 2, 2010, at the amount lower than the actual contract amount, and the said company paid only the printing cost under the actual contract, and the E-Si Election Commission conspired to receive the preservation of the election expenses according to the amount unrefilled by submitting documentary evidence, such as false tax invoices, estimates, contracts, etc. stating the amount unrefilledd as above.

A. In the case of receiving and disbursing election expenses in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act with regard to false entry of the accused and D documents, the receipts and other evidential documents shall not be entered, counterfeited or altered.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and D find as the “H” office operated by G in F around May 2010, and request D to print the official gazette, pledge collection, etc., and D shall determine the price for the actual printing contract to the above G as KRW 70,000,000,000,000 for the relevant documents, such as the tax contract, etc., and the remaining money is returned to the Defendant, and the consent was obtained from the above G.

Around May 10, 2010, the Defendant and D were supplied with printed materials from the above G, and the Defendant conspired with 'H' office with 'H' with 110,000,000 won, 11,000,000,000 won, and 121,00,000,000 won, and 'the total amount of 50,000,000 won, 'the above 50,000,000,000 won, 'the above 50,000,000,000 won, 'the above 'the 50,000,000,000 won, 'the above 'the 50,000,000,000 won, 'the 10,500,000,000 won, 'the 10,500,000,000 won.'

B. The Defendant and D’s fraud

The Defendant and D, as described in the above 1-A (A), shall be sentenced to the preservation of election expenses by using documentary evidence stating the amount of printing printed, as described in the above 1-A (i.e., the Defendant, at the E-Si Election Commission office located in I on June 14, 2010. The Defendant, at the E-Si Election Commission office located in I on June 14, 2010, submitted the following documents: (a) although the actual printing cost was 70,000,000 won; (b) as if the actual printing cost was 121,00,000 won; (c) as stated in the above 1-A (A), attached documentary evidence, such as a quotation, tax invoice, contract, and the statement of revenue and expenditure of political funds; and (d) D, on July 30, 2010, conspired to receive the amount of KRW 82,720,7424 won from the public official in charge of the E-Si Election Commission on his name to the account of bank account of the victim.

2. Fraud related to expenses for banners;

The Defendant and D received a contract and tax invoice with respect to the expenses for bannering in relation to the E/Si/Gu Office of Education, which was implemented on June 2, 2010, from the banner company, at an amount less than the actual contract price, and the said company received a refund of the difference excessively appropriated after the payment according to the amount issued by the said tax invoice. The E/Si/Gun election commission received a false tax invoice, estimate, contract, etc. stating the amount so uneased as above, by submitting documentary evidence, such as a false tax invoice, estimate, and contract.

Defendant and D, when entering into a contract for the production and installation of banner at K and election campaign office, etc. with K on April 2010, which are operating a banner manufacturer, agreed to install KRW 8,000 per meter (=2,345,983 won per meter) (i.e., expenses for banner + KRW 17,737,192 + KRW 4,608,791 won). However, the Defendant received KRW 23,310,617 from 45,66,60 won for the production and installation of banner (i.e., KRW 41,07,000 + KRW 41,07,000) and KRW 36,000,000 from 36,000,000 won for the total amount of KRW 5,000,000 from 36,000 and KRW 16,000,000,000).

Accordingly, the defendant and D conspired to deception the public officials of the E-Si Election Commission in the name of the above, thereby deceiving the victim of KRW 13,513,753.

3. Defendant’s violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, fraud, and attempted fraud;

The Defendant issued a contract, tax invoice, etc. with respect to the expenses for the manufacture of taxable vehicles, planning design, and other electoral goods from the planning and design company on June 2, 2010 with respect to the E-Si Office of Education, which was implemented on June 2, 2010, only paid the expenses actually contracted to the said company, and the E-Si Election Commission submitted evidentiary documents, such as a false tax invoice, estimate, contract, etc. stating the amount so unreftened, and received the preservation of election expenses in accordance with the amount unreftened.

A. Related to the cost of manufacturing a small-scale motor vehicle

(1) In the case of receiving and disbursing the election expenses in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, false entry of receipts and other evidential documents

· No forgery or alteration shall be made.

Nevertheless, on May 10, 2010, the Defendant requested the representative M of "L" to manufacture oil vehicles, etc., and decided that M and manufacturing price shall be KRW 72,215,00,00, and entered into a contract with the written estimate, written contract stating the amount, and affixed the seal of the said D which is the candidate to the said written contract.

Since then, on May 12, 2010, the Defendant was supplied with the above MM, paid KRW 22,00,000, KRW 30,000,000 on May 19, 2010, KRW 9,535,900 on June 4, 2010, and KRW 2,084,00 on June 11, 2010, and paid KRW 63,619,90 on a total of KRW 63,619,00 on an additional payment of the remainder to the above M M who talked to demand an additional payment of the remainder of the election before "on June 11, 2010, the additional tax was not set at KRW 22,00,00, KRW 30,000 on May 19, 200, KRW 205,000 on the contract amount to be reduced, and the remaining amount may be reduced to KRW 105,505,000.

On June 12, 2010, the Defendant received a tax invoice of KRW 72,215,000 on the cost of manufacturing oil vehicles from the said M in accordance with the said agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant made a false entry in the tax invoice, which is a document evidencing election expenses, even though the cost of manufacturing oil vehicles is not KRW 63,619,90,00.

(2) Fraudulent attempted

The Defendant, as described in the above 3-A (1) as stated in the above 3-A (1), was able to receive election expenses by using documentary evidence stating the cost for manufacturing the unclaimed vehicles, and at the E-Si Election Commission office located in I around June 14, 2010, the fact that the amount actually paid to a public official was KRW 63,619,90 as stated in the above 3-A (1) as stated in the above 3-3-A (1), even if the amount actually paid to a public official was 63,215,00 won as stated in the above 3-A (1), the Defendant submitted the "written request for the preservation of the election expenses" as stated in the above 1-B (b), but received the money from the E-Si public official in charge of the name unclaimed election commission on July 30, 2010 to the above 61,690,000 won for the actual expenses related to the election expenses.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, attempted to defraud 8,595,100 won from the Republic of Korea by deceiving a public official of the E-City Election Commission on his name in order to obtain preservation less than actual expenses from the E-City Election Commission, but did not commit an attempted crime.

B. Concerning planning design and other expenses for election supplies

(1) In the case of receiving and disbursing election expenses in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act with regard to false statements, the receipts and other evidential documents shall not be falsely entered, counterfeited, or altered.

Nevertheless, on June 12, 2010, the Defendant prepared a estimate, contract, tax invoice, etc. as if the E Si Election Commission supplied the whole amount from the E Si Election Commission’s “L” service to be compensated for election expenses, but requested the above M to enter the amount in the amount less than the actual cost.

According to the above agreement, the defendant paid 2.5 million won for the above M's election campaign bulletin, pledge, poster design document at the above M' at the above time and place, but he stated 3,410,00 won for the above M'', 10 items purchase and services as stated in the attached crime list (2), 1,804,000 won for a total of 11,804,120 won for the above '20,840,000 won for the above '60,000 won for the above '3,000 won for the above 'L', '60,000 won for the supply', '60,000 won for the above '6,000 won for the above '6,000 won for the supply', '60,000 won for the above '60,000 won for the supply of '60,000 won for the above '60,000 won for the supply amount for '

(2) Fraud

The defendant, using documentary evidence stated in the above 3-b. (1) as stated in the above 3-B. (2) above, was sentenced to the preservation of election expenses related to planning designs and other election goods delivery expenses. On June 14, 2010, the defendant received 2.5 million won from the E Si/Gun/Gu office located in I to "0," but he paid 2.5 million won to "L" in the above 3,410,00 won, including the fact that he entered 10 won in the above 3,410,00 won in the "L" as if he entered into a contract to pay "3,50 won" in the above 10 items purchase and services, and the supply place and expenditure expenses of the goods and 10 won in total, such as estimates, contracts, tax invoices, etc. stating false expenses, and received 1500,000 won as stated in the above 9-61 (2) list from the E/Do election commission, and thereby received from the public official in charge of the above 250150.5 days's.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of the witness M;

1. Statement made by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. The witness's statement in P in the fourth trial record;

1. The statements of the witness K in the fifth and sixth trial records;

1. Statements made by witnesses Q in the sixth trial records;

1. Statement made by a witness R in the seventh trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination against D and accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning G, P, K, S, T, M, and U;

1. A written statement in G, R, K, Q, and U;

1. Examination protocol of suspect (2010 punishment No. 26893), statement No. 2010 through 187 (provisional name);

1. Investigation reports [Detailed Details of Transactions between A and G (H)], investigation reports [Attachment of Contract Details], investigation reports (Attachment of Decision on Violation of the Political Funds Act by the Superintendent of the Office of Education on June 2, 2010), investigation reports (Attachment of Decision on June 2, 2010) (Attachment of Decision on Violation of the Political Funds Act), investigation reports (2010), data, such as election report related to the Superintendent of the Office of Education (2010), investigation reports (Attachment of List of Tax Invoices, etc.), investigation reports (Attachment of Certificate of Content), investigation reports (Attachment of Certificate of Delivery), investigation reports (Attachment of E-Supply Tax Invoice, etc. of M-Submission L), investigation reports (M-Submission, ‘W-Submission', ‘W-Submission', ‘Agreement', and Receipt’), deposit notification (Attachment of Data on Business of Candidates and Data on Business of Companies in Office of Education), deposit notification (Attachment of Data on Election Report) by the Superintendent of the Office of Education on Deposit in Office of Education on Deposit (20 years Election Report).

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of evidentiary materials, No. 213,233) No. 2010 internal investigation and investigation report No. 187, 2010 internal investigation and investigation report No. 2010 internal investigation and investigation report No. 187 (Report on the Election Commission's review data, TMM review data), investigation report No. 2010 internal investigation and investigation report No. 187 (Attachment of printing prices and D candidate work sites), 2010 internal investigation records No. 187 (A), 2010 internal investigation records No. 187, 2010 internal investigation and investigation records No. 35878 (related to the current status of sales), 2010-type investigation report (the account that K deposits and withdraws candidates' expenses), 2010-type investigation report No. 35878 (208-type investigation records, 208-type investigation records, etc.) investigation records No. 3088 (2085-type investigation records, etc. 20785) investigation records;

1. Details of transfer from G; current status of goods contracts (Evidence No. 31); court rulings; distance; overall statement of revenue and expenditure of supporters' associations; statement of revenue and expenditure for election expenses (No. 14.6.28.2010); document verifying contents of Etax-free solicitation; receipts; receipts; receipts; receipts; receipts; receipts; 20-10-6-6-2-6-2-17-7-2-17-7-2-17-7-2-17-2-7-17-2-7-17-2-7-17-2-7-17-2-3-2-7-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-2-3-3-1-6-2-1-6-3-2-3-1-6-3-1-6-3-1-6-2-3-14-7-7-201-6-3-17-7-1-2-2-3-3-3-3-3-7-201-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-

1. A previous conviction in the judgment: Three copies of the judgment [Ulsan District Court 2014Gohap215,331 (combined), Busan High Court 2015No378, Supreme Court 2016Do1614], and one copy of the summary agreement assistant to the agreement of the KICS case;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 50 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 49(1) and (2)6 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to false entries in printed expenses related to printing expenses, the selection of fines), Article 50 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 49(1) and (2)6 of the Political Funds Act (the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act due to false entries in the plan and design for manufacture of rent vehicles and other expenses related to election supplies, the selection of fines), Articles 347(1), 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1), and 37(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 47(1) of the Criminal Act (the selection of fines), fraud against printing expenses and banner expenses, fraud against planning plans and other expenses for election supplies, choice of imprisonment), Article 352, and Article 347(1) (the selection of a person who attempted to commit fraud against the cost of manufacturing rent vehicles) of the Criminal Act.

1. Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (the punishment for the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act and the punishment for each fraud and attempted fraud shall be separately imposed);

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (latter part of Article 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (Mutual between the crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in the case of a violation of each Local Education Autonomy Act, punishment and punishment for the crime of violation of each Local Education Autonomy Act shall be the most severe punishment and punishment for the crime of violation of each Local Education Autonomy Act, the punishment for the crime of violation of each Act specified in Article 1-A of the Local Education Autonomy Ordinance, and the punishment for each crime of fraud specified in Article 3

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The defendant has not entered false matters in collusion with D concerning printing expenses and has not obtained the amount equivalent to the printing expenses actually paid by using such false facts in collusion with D, by preserving them as election expenses.

B. The Defendant’s fraud related to the banner costs should be sentenced to a judgment of acquittal on April 16, 201, on the ground that the Defendant’s basic factual basis was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 on January 13, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 16, 2011.

C. There is no fact that the defendant, in collusion with D in relation to the banner costs, has received an amount equivalent to the actual expenses paid by using false evidential documents, and fraudulently acquired them as election expenses.

D. There is no fact that the defendant has entered false matters in the documentary evidence related to the cost of manufacturing pro rata vehicles, and attempted to take money more than the actual cost paid by using it as election expenses, and to take money by fraud.

E. There is no fact that the Defendant entered false matters in the documentary evidence such as the planning design and other expenses for election supplies as shown in the attached list of crimes (2) and then acquired the goods purchase cost by excessively preserving the goods purchase cost using it.

2. Determination

(a) Whether the defendant, in collusion with D, makes a false statement on documentary evidence, etc. in connection with printing expenses, and then acquires the excessive election expenses calculated by using it and the actual election expenses by fraud;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, G’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is reliable, and considering the status and role of the defendant in the election of the superintendent of education of this case, the relationship between the defendant and D, and other relevant evidence, the defendant conspired with D to make a false entry in the amount of unfasible document, etc. in comparison with D in relation to the printing cost, and obtained excessive preservation of election expenses by receiving the money equivalent to the difference.

① On June 2, 2010, the representative G of “H” who entered into a printing contract with D with regard to the official gazette and pledge collection, etc., was already examined as to the facts charged in this part on or around 2010. However, at that time, the false statement was made by the prosecutor at the time of the false statement, and is consistent from the prosecutor’s investigation to the present court on July 24, 2014, with the following contents.

On May 1, 2010, the first patrolman D found the Defendant at “H” with the Defendant. D at the time, the last unit of “(printing expenses)” was detached from G at the office, and the tax invoice was defective to KRW 110 million, and the remaining money was returned to the Defendant.

4. At the time, the printing price offered by D was less than KRW 90,000,00,000, which was the original printing cost, but D or the Defendant offered that “H, if the election is held by the Superintendent of the Office of Education, shall be registered with the Office of Education and shall work at the Office of Education” and promised to print and print official gazettes, pledges, etc. at the request of D to work related to the Office of Education in the future.

C. Accordingly, Q, an employee of "H, after the supply of all copies of the pledge in accordance with the terms of the contract, 50,000, 440,50, 1750 copies of the poster, etc., Q, an employee of "H," has prepared a written request for the payment of May 3, 2010, 6, 2010, and 70,000,000,000,000 won which were first presented in D, was paid for printing costs. However, the tax invoice and the said quotation, etc. were written as KRW 110,00,000,000 and KRW 12,100,000,000,000,000,000 won as printing costs.After other than the election commission related persons, G continued to receive the printing cost from "D," and G continued to return the price to G, i.e., 500,000 won.

Around two years after the completion of the instant election and around 2012, the Defendant discussed to adjust the printing cost of KRW 51 million on the Defendant’s documents, and the Defendant transferred KRW 51 million to G name from April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013. However, from June 20, 2012 to May 28, 2013, the Defendant again transferred KRW 29 million to the account under the name of the Defendant’s name (the representative in the name of the AF in fact operated by the Defendant) at the request of the Defendant during several times from May 20, 2013, and again returned KRW 10 to KRW 22 million to the Defendant from 200 to 200.0 to 14 years from 20 years from 3 years from 2010 to 20 years from 4 years from 200 to 3 years from 4 years from 2014 to 3 years from 204. M was forced the Defendant to make a false statement.

② The head of the D’s performance team and the head of the camp general affairs in the instant election shall be in charge of the investigation agency.

From September 201 to this Court, G consistently stated that “H, along with a policeman D and a driver of a vehicle, is hh”. At the time, G, on the first floor of the foregoing factory, having teared twice the number on which it was used for the printing shop, and shows it to D. G, the number of which is 7,000 and 100 million won. G, with the said two numbers written number written in gambling, “I would like to see that D would be hhiffed.” This part of P’s statement is consistent with G’s statement to the effect that it agreed to issue a tax invoice by withdrawing the printing price.

③ Around May 2010, Q, who was an employee of Q, had visited D and the Defendant to discuss about the production of promotional materials by visiting D and the Defendant. From this court, Q, as to the reason why D visited D and the Defendant around May 2010, the Defendant appeared several times thereafter, and it was true when D and the Defendant visited D and the Defendant directly bring about her coffee. As such, Q’s above statement is natural even if it is specific, and it does not find any particular contradiction, it is deemed that R were credibility in its statement because it was an employee of Q, who was an employee of D and the Defendant, had a two-story room and a two-story room, and divided them into G and Q, which were 20 minutes at the time of their execution. The Defendant made a statement that Q and Q made a statement that Q and the Defendant made a statement that Q and the Defendant had entered into a contract with G and Q around 10, 2010 as part of the Defendant’s office.

① A while engaging in the printing business for not less than 20 years, G was almost rarely delivering printed materials to E Office of Education prior to the instant election. There is a circumstance to add credibility to G’s statement to the effect that D, from Dec. 29, 2010 to Oct. 17, 2013, a total of KRW 360,000,000, including the supply of experimental paper with E Office of Education from Oct. 29, 2010, to Oct. 17, 2013. This is the circumstance to add credibility to G’s statement that “D or Defendant would cause the Office of Education to perform its work, and proposed to set the actual printing amount of KRW 70,00,000.”

⑤ As above, G’s statement is consistent from the prosecution investigation around July 2014 to the present court. Although G denies the excessive appropriation of printing costs in the prosecution investigation around 2010, G denies, the Defendant in the process of the prosecution investigation conducted at the prosecution investigation conducted at the time of February 18, 2013 remitted the total of KRW 51 million to G during the period from April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013. From June 20, 2012 to May 28, 2013, it is difficult to view that G submitted the details of account transactions again remitted to the Defendant through the account in the name of W to the effect that it was difficult to view that G had concluded a contract with the pertinent investigative agency at the time of the instant election, it was difficult to view that it was difficult to view that G’s statement to have re-written its credibility in the future by taking account of the circumstances leading up to such testimony that it was difficult to view that it did not have any other credibility as seen above.

6) The “report on the revenue and expenditure of political funds” submitted to the election commission by the Defendant refers to KRW 121 million in printing costs, KRW 70 million in printing costs, KRW 51 million in printing costs, and KRW 70 million in printing costs, and in fact, G is paid KRW 70 million in printing costs, and the remainder KRW 51 million in printing costs have not been paid to G during the election campaign period of this case and approximately 2 years thereafter. In addition, these circumstances are supported by the G statement that the said KRW 51 million in printing costs are insufficient.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts to the effect that in order to arrange the above KRW 51 million, which is the unpaid portion at the time of the instant election, the Defendant transferred KRW 51 million from his account to G’s account after the completion of the instant election.

Meanwhile, according to the details of account transactions between the Defendant and G, the Defendant transferred KRW 51 million to G on seven occasions from April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013, and G transferred KRW 51 million to G on four occasions from June 20, 2012 to May 28, 2013.

However, if the above amount of KRW 10,100,00 is determined to be KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were 10,000,000 won for each of the above 5,000 won for each of the above 5,00 won for each of the above 00,00 won for each of the above 5,00 won for each of the above 0,00 won for each of the 10,00 won for each of the above 5,00 won for each of the above 0,00 won for each of the 5,00,00 won for each of the above 5,00 won for each of the above 0,00 won for each of the above 5,00 won for each of the above 5,00 won for each of the above 1,000 won for each of the above 5,000 won for each of the above 5.

7) At around 2010, in T’s 2010, - 70 million won printing value was discovered and seized on the vehicles of D’s dynamics. In this regard, T was investigated by the prosecution around 2010 and stated that “the aggregate amount of printed materials up to that time is that it is that the said sum of printed materials at that time is that it is that the said sum.” In the prosecutor’s investigation in 2014, C stated to the effect that “the meeting was held, was almost every day, and the meeting was held, and D was in charge of the meeting.” Even based on the contents and T’s statement, the Defendant and D were deemed to have been aware of the printing amount at that time of the instant case.

(8) The Defendant asserts that “the election commission shall not be deemed to have obtained excessive preservation of election expenses and acquired it by means of a false accounting report, since it only preserves printing expenses actually used, regardless of the amount applied for the preservation of the Defendant, a person in charge of accounting, regardless of the amount applied for the preservation of the election expenses.” However, in cases where the election commission collects election expenses less than ordinary transaction prices, it shall preserve election expenses only within the extent of actual amount of expenditure calculated through documentary evidence, such as receipts and estimates submitted by the same accountant in charge as the Defendant, in the event that the expenses are paid less than ordinary transaction prices in compensating for the election expenses. As such, insofar as the Defendant’s submission of documentary evidence and preservation of 82,720,424 won exceeds the actual amount paid, it may be deemed that the Defendant acquired by fraud equivalent to the difference between the preservation expenses and the actual amount paid by the Defendant through a false accounting report. However, the same shall also apply to the case of compensating for election expenses in the name of another person. Whether the facts charged or the identity of criminal facts should be pronounced with respect to the legal identity of facts.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances, the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act, which the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 200,000,000, and the crime of fraud related to the expense for banner of this case, cannot be deemed to have a relationship that has res judicata effect on the same factual basis. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that a judgment of acquittal should be rendered on the fraud related to the expense for banner is without merit.

① According to the judgment (No. 56 list of evidence) and the records of crimes and investigation records (A), the defendant was indicted for violating the Political Funds Act by making false entries in the evidential documents and the accounting report concerning the banner costs of this case, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 on January 13, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 16, 201. However, in the case of a violation of the Political Funds Act, the benefit and protection of the said legal interest would contribute to the sound development of democratic politics by preventing any malpractice related to political funds by securing the transparency of the revenue and expenditure details of political funds, while the benefit and protection of the law of fraud related to the banner costs of this case is clearly different from the property rights.

In the case of the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act and the crime of fraud, some facts overlap in relation to the expenses for banner, but the fraud related to the expense for banner of this case includes not only the fact that the defendant made a false entry in the expenses for banner, etc. but also the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim by submitting false documents, etc. prepared as such to the public officials of the Election Commission in charge of E City, and receives money from the victim.

③ As seen earlier, in the case of the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act and fraud, it is difficult to view that the two are in a relationship of single or commercial concurrent crimes because there is a big difference between the legal interest protected by the said Act and the elements of the crime and the attitude of the act.

(c) Whether the defendant and D have made a false entry in evidential documents, etc. in collusion with the defendant in connection with the expenses for banner, and then acquired the excessive election expenses calculated using it and the difference between the actual election expenses;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement in collusion with D in relation to the cost of banner, and acquired money corresponding to the difference by obtaining excessive preservation of election expenses by using it. In light of the above, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant made a false statement in collusion with D in relation to the cost of banner, and acquired money corresponding to the difference.

① D이 현수막과 관련하여 그 제작·설치 계약을 체결한 'J'의 대표 K은 2010년경 이 부분 공소사실과 관련하여 정치자금법 위반으로 기소되어 울산지방법원(2010고단 2600호 사건)에서 벌금 100만 원을 선고받아 2011. 4. 2. 그 판결이 확정되었다. 그런데 K은 2010년경의 수사과정에서는 허위 진술을 하였다고 스스로 고백하며 2014. 10. 8.경 검찰에서 조사를 받을 때부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 아래와 같은 내용으로 일관되게 진술하고 있다.가 이 사건 선거 무렵인 2010. 4. 초경 E의 한 장례식장에서 D을 알게 되었고 그 무렵 피고인과 이 사건 선거에 필요한 현수막 제작·설치 계약을 체결하였다. 당시 K은 피고인에게 제곱미터 당 원가인 8,000원에 현수막을 제작·납품하겠다고 제안하였 고4), 그 금액대로 2010. 4. 12.경부터 2010. 5. 25.경까지 현수막 납품을 끝내자 피고인은 K에게 제곱미터 당 21,000원(거리 현수막의 경우 제곱미터 당 12,000원)으로 계산한 견적서를 요구하였다.나 K은 피고인의 요구대로 제곱미터 당 21,000원(거리 현수막의 경우 제곱미터당 12,000원)으로 계산한 견적서, 세금계산서, 계약서 등을 피고인에게 교부하였고, 2010. 5. 27. 16:21경 D으로부터 자신 명의의 외환은행 계좌로 견적서 기재 금액인 45,656,600원을 이체받았다. 한편, K은 그 직전인 같은 날 오전 09:04경 D으로부터 전화로 "누가 갈 거니깐 남은 돈을 줘라"라는 말을 들었고, 그 다음 날인 2010. 5, 28.경 D의 친동생인 T가 자신을 찾아와서 AG 명의의 계좌번호를 메모해 주면서 "이 계좌로 돈을 보내주세요"라고 하였다. 이에 K은 같은 날 14:47경 T가 알려준 AG 명의의 계좌로 견적서 상의 금액(45,656,600원)과 실제 납품금액(24,427,800원) 간의 차액인 21,228,800원을 이체하였다.다 K은 위 송금과 관련하여 정치자금법위반으로 조사받는 과정에서는, "D의 친동생인 T로부터 돈을 빌려달라는 부탁을 받고 2010. 5. 28.경 T가 알려준 AG 명의의 계좌로 21,228,800원을 송금한 것이었다.”고 진술하였는바, 그 당시 K이 그와 같이 진술하였던 이유는 검찰 조사를 받기 약 2~3일 전인 2010. 8. 초순경 D으로부터 'T에게 돈을 빌려준 것으로 진술해 달라'는 부탁을 받았기 때문이었다.라 K은 위 검찰 수사 계속 중인 2010. 9. 초순경 E교육청 교육감실로 D을 찾아간 적이 있는데 그때 D으로부터 "나는 정치인이 아니고 교수 출신이다. 의리 지키니까 믿어 달라"라는 말을 들었고, 당시 K은 이 말을 E교육청과 여러 건의 납품계약을 체결할 수 있도록 D이 힘을 써 주겠다는 의미로 받아들였다. 그런데 K이 정치자금법 위반으로 검찰 조사 및 재판을 거쳐 결국 벌금형을 선고받기까지 약 1년 동안 여러 가지로 힘들었음에도 D은 E교육청과의 납품계약 체결 약속을 제대로 지키지 않았고, 최근에 뉴스를 통하여 D의 사촌 동생들(피고인 포함)이 업체들로부터 돈을 받고 그 업체들이 교육청 관련 공사를 수주할 수 있게 하였다는 소식을 접하고는 더 이상 D에게 의리를 지킬 필요가 없다는 생각이 들어 진술을 번복하게 되었다.

② The sales books of this case contain 45,656,60 won which are transferred from D are not indicated as the price for banner, but 21,228,800 won which K paid to T, and 45,656,600 won which is equivalent to the value-added tax out of 4,150,600 won (- 21,228,800 won + 4,600 won + 4,600 won which is 20,277,000 won which is short of 200 won in the above sales books, 605 won in the above sales books and 206,67,000 won in the above sales books and 406,60 won in the above sales books and 605 won in the amount of value-added tax, 20,77,000 won in the amount of value-added tax, 606,605 won in the above sales books and 705 won in the amount of value-added.

③ In addition, at around 09:04 on May 27, 2010, K calls to D and calls for about two-thirds of 20 seconds, and on the purpose that, before remitting KRW 21,228,800 as of May 28, 2010, K calls to the effect that “the remaining money for a short time to move” from D, and that, before remitting KRW 21,228,800 as of May 28, 2010, K made a concrete statement on the details of the remittance to the effect that “J office” was stored by you.

④ As examined below, the following is consistent with the details of receipt and return of the price for banner which is a part of the relevant persons confirmed by objective materials, such as telephone calls and account transfer records at the time of the instant case, and the details of receipt and return of the price.

The Defendant, D, K, T, and AG made a call or account transfer as follows:

- On May 27, 2010, at around 09:04, from around 09:04, KID calls (two minutes) to the Defendant at around 16:16 on May 27, 2010, K call (13 seconds) to the Defendant (one minute 25,65,600 on May 27, 2010) to transfer KRW 45,656,600 on printing on D’s unfased copy to K at around 16:24 on May 27, 2010 to the Defendant (one minute 2010, 5, 28:13:10 on May 27, 2010).

From around 2010, 5, 13:52, T phone (1 minute 20 seconds) to D - around 13:57 on May 28, 2010 - around 14:30 on May 28, 2010, T phone (2 minute 19 seconds) to K - on May 28, 2010 - around 14:4:41 on May 28, 2010 (1 minute 21,228,80 won to AG account in the name of AG 205:4: 25:44 on May 28, 2010 (1 minute 28 seconds) to T 3:5:4:44 on May 25, 2015 (201: 4: 25: 5: 201, K 14:45,500 won to AG on May 28, 2010.

K. On May 27, 2010, with respect to the above process of making a call, etc., at the prosecutor’s office, he/she called D. D on May 27, 2010, and he/she called D. D at that time, and sent a text message that he/she was at any time and at any time deposited money to the Defendant. The same shall apply to the following: on May 28, 2010, he/she asked 3 of the phone call to 1: 5 of the office address at any time and at any time; 1: 2: 3: 5: 3: 1; 2: 3: 3: 1; 4. 5: 1; 2; 3: 4. 1; 2; 35; 4; 4; 1; 4; 4. 1; 25; 37; 4; 4; 1; 25; 30; 4; 4; 1; 20; 37; 37; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; etc.

⑤ As above, K’s statement is consistent from the prosecutor’s investigation around October 2014 to the present law, and it is difficult to find out especially D or Defendant in the process of reversing his statement differently from 2010. The sales books prepared by K in the election of this case are 24,427,600 won, not 45,656,60 won as Defendant’s assertion, + 20,277,000 won + tax amount 4,150,600 won. In light of the fact that the difference between the sales amount and the tax amount was calculated on May 27, 2010, and around May 28, 2010, it is also difficult to find out the difference between the amount of 20,000 won and the amount of 20,000 won under the name of 20,000 won under the name of 20,000 won under the name of 20,000 won under the bill to be returned.

④ At this court, T stated that the above KRW 21 million was borrowed from K. However, as seen earlier, in the prosecutorial investigation in 2014, T was stated to have returned the above KRW 21 million with the difference, but this court did not consistent with the above statement, such as the reversal of the statement in this court, and there was no agreement between K and T on the time of repayment or interest, etc. with respect to the above money, K did not demand or demand payment of the above money, and K did not demand or demand payment of the money thereafter, at least 21,28,80 won already calculated and returned money to T until the payment of the banner was made. In light of the above fact that the above act of K was not seen as a normal act of lending money, K and T cannot be viewed as a loan of KRW 21,28,80 to the above KRW 100,000,000,000 from May 28, 2010, it cannot be viewed as a loan of KRW 200,000.

7) In light of the fact that TG transfers of KRW 21,228,80 to an account in the name of a person AA in de facto marital relationship on May 31, 2010, and most of them were withdrawn in cash at the AH branch and AI branch located near the election office on June 1, 2010, the above money was transferred through the account in the name of TG and most of it were withdrawn in cash within a short period. In addition, considering the fact that T was withdrawn through the account in the name of a person in the name of T, it appears that T would have attempted to conceal the place of use of the money received from K. In addition, considering the fact that T received the money for the soften banner banner and the transfer and withdrawal of the money for the soften banner in the process of investigating the Republic of Korea in 2014, the Defendant appears to have received the difference of the money for the soften banner and sent it to the Defendant, which appears to have been used directly as the production cost of TG, as stated in the name of each of this case.

(d) Whether a criminal defendant has committed an attempted crime by deceiving, or attempted to commit an excessive election expenses calculated by using a false document after making a false statement on such expenses and election expenses equivalent to the difference in the actual election expenses;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant has credibility in his statement consistent with this part of the facts charged, and if the remainder of the relevant evidence is discovered, the defendant attempted to take over the amount equivalent to the difference between the election expenses and the actual election expenses calculated by using the false statement on the documentary evidence related to the manufacturing cost of pro rata vehicles, and then obtain the same from the attempted offender.

① At the time of the instant election, M, which entered into a contract for the manufacture and supply of a small-scale vehicle to be used in a DNA campaign, stated in this Court as follows:

At the time of the election of the Superintendent of an Office of Education in 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract to manufacture and supply a fluoral vehicle into the D election campaign. At the time, the lower amount was 72,215,000 won (including value added tax) and the instant contract was written in the amount. After supplying a f3,619,90 won to the Defendant, the Defendant was provided with a f3,619,90 won in total. The lower amount was demanded to the Defendant to pay the remaining amount of KRW 8,595,100 in total, but the Defendant was to pay the lower amount of KRW 8,595,100 to the Defendant, not the remaining amount of the 0th election campaign. However, at the time of the initial election of the Defendant, the Defendant did not receive the remainder of the amount of the 6th election campaign and entered the 0th election campaign in the 0th election campaign at the time of the issuance of the 0th election campaign, but the Defendant rejected the construction at the lower amount of the 6th election.

This is because the demand was made.

E) The lower court received the rent, damages due to an accident, and personnel expenses for three drivers of a small vehicle from a D election campaign. The money is entirely included in KRW 63,619,90,00 that the Defendant paid to the lower party at the cost of supplying a small vehicle. This is not an additional money from the election campaign.

The author, after being elected to the superintendent of the Office of Education in the DO E-si, has produced and supplied the name tag of all employees of the Office of Education and the first floor of the Office of Education, and the two supply and construction have found the defendant to find the U of the Office of Education as the defendant would find his work.

② In the prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant stated that “The unpaid amount out of the rent for rent is KRW 10,000,000,000,000 is different from the contract amount. The reasons are that the amount of the rent for rent for six generation vehicles and the rent for one and a half ton truck should be settled ex post, and that this was put in an accounting report, and thus, it became said.” In this court, the Defendant stated that “M only supplies rent for generation vehicles, and did not pay the cost for generation vehicles and the driver for rent for rent vehicles.” The Defendant separately paid KRW 63,619,900 corresponding to the cost for rent for rent and the cost for the driver for rent for rent for generation, and paid KRW 63,619,900 for M through M and the settlement process. After that, when making an accounting report on the expenses for rent for rent vehicles, the Defendant reported all the expenses related to the rent for power generation and the expenses for rent for rent for drivers, and thus, the Defendant stated that the accounting report was made as KRW 72,215,000.”

On the other hand, among the documentary evidence submitted by the Defendant to the Eth Election Commission at the time of the instant case, the detailed item of the “strawing” does not include the cost of purchasing the 'electric power plant' claimed to the effect that the Defendant should be included in the cost of the vehicle, so it is difficult to view that M is included in the cost of manufacturing the vehicle because the Defendant purchased the power plant and offered it to M. As seen earlier, M is included in the cost of manufacturing the vehicle. As seen earlier, M is included in the 63,619,90 won that the Defendant paid to the low-incomeer. Even according to the Defendant’s above statement, the amount of KRW 10,00,000, out of KRW 72,215,000,000 as the cost of manufacturing the vehicle indicated in the documentary evidence, and the amount of KRW 10,000,000 as the cost of manufacturing the vehicle under the name of the Defendant was included in the above accounting report.

③ In full view of the following facts: (a) the above statement of M is consistent with the main part of the prosecution investigation from the prosecutor’s office to the present court; (b) it appears that M, as at the time of the instant case, expected future benefits that could have been gained by entering into a contract with the E Office of Education by winning the future D in the future at the time of the instant case; and (c) in fact, M was intended to produce and deliver the name tag of all employees of the Office of Education and the first floor of the Office of Education as the introduction of Defendant, and it is difficult to view that M did not have any special motive to dismiss Defendant or D; and (d) the statement consistent with the facts charged in this part is deemed to have credibility.

④ The Defendant alleged that he spent KRW 2600,000,000 for expenses incurred due to an accident that occurred by the relevant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant claimed to compensate for election expenses under the detailed item of “a protruding-on-board signboard damage and new production attachment” which is not “expenses for manufacturing protruding-out-board vehicles” but “expenses for manufacturing protruding-out-board vehicles and other supplies for election”. As such, even if the Defendant spent KRW 2,600,000 for protruding-out-out vehicle accident expenses other than the above KRW 63,619,90,00 for protruding-out-out vehicle construction expenses from D election campaign, it can be deemed that the Defendant spent KRW 2,60,000 for pro rata vehicle accident expenses separately in addition to the above KRW 63,619,90,000,000 for pro-on-on-ray vehicle construction expenses, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant paid KRW 636,600,000 for pro-on-out vehicles.

(e) Whether or not there is any fact that the defendant has obtained by deceit the difference between election expenses calculated excessively by using it after making false entries in documentary evidence with respect to planning designs and other expenses for election goods; and

① At the time of the instant election, M, which prepared documentary evidence, such as a quotation, tax invoice, and contract, related to the “plan plan design and other cost for election goods,” made a statement in compliance with this part of the facts charged as follows.

At the time of the election of the Eth Superintendent of the Office of Education in 2010, the Defendant prepared the contract and related tax invoices with the same purpose as the estimate of the construction cost 22,924,00 won, including the surcharge 20,840,000 won (excluding the surcharge) and the surcharge 22,924,000 won, for the following reasons: (a) at the time of the election of the Eth superintendent of the Office of Education in 2010, the estimated amount for the items supplied by 12 goods, such as election campaign bulletins, pledges, campaign promises, planning design expenses for posters, hereinafter referred to as the "planing expenses for posters", hereinafter referred to as the "M", hereinafter referred to as the "M", and the price actually paid to the "L".

No. 1 of the aforementioned false estimates, contracts, and tax invoices were prepared by the Defendant at the time of filing a claim for the preservation of expenses to the election commission, and the Defendant demanded to prepare them with the above contents. Accordingly, the Defendant entered the supply place and the expenditure expenses as the Defendant did.

Of the contents of the estimates, etc., the part on which a distance banner is attached is inconsistent with the actual provision of services, but it does not include any particular large amount of money, and it does not mean to receive money from the defendant, but makes a false statement as if the defendant was to receive 660,000 won as ordered.

It is not true that 3,080,000 won was paid with regard to ordering L to ‘L' and related to ‘L'.

C. Written estimates, etc. are paid 3,300,000 won to L and purchased the prizes. It is not true.

E. Of the foregoing estimates, the contents of the “mark manufacturing cost” and “small goods” are inconsistent with the actual provision of the said estimates, but they do not have any particular large amount of money and did not intend to receive money from the Defendant. However, there is a false statement as if the Defendant was to receive KRW 550,00, KRW 495,000 according to the Defendant’s order.

Of the contents of the above estimates, "mothers (elections)" portion is that the defendant actually purchased 500,000 won from 'AK', but it is false that the defendant paid 1,100,000 won to 'L' according to the defendant's order.

In addition, among the contents of the above quotations, "election campaign bulletins, pledges, and poster planning design expenses" are actually stated as false as if the defendant paid KRW 3,751,000 to "L" under the defendant's direction, although the defendant paid KRW 2,50,000 to "0".

In fact, although the defendant paid 630,000 won to 'AL' and purchased the 'AL', it is false that the defendant paid 693,000 won to 'L' according to the defendant's order.

Of the contents of the foregoing quotations, the phrase "prestigious planning and design fees" is inconsistent with the actual provision of services, but it is false as if the defendant was paid KRW 1,650,000 in accordance with the defendant's order, even though the defendant did not have to receive money.The part of the "prestigious advertising planning and design fees" among the contents of the above quotations is inconsistent with the actual provision of services, but it does not include any particular money, and it does not allow the defendant to receive money from the defendant. However, it is false as if the defendant was paid KRW 2,145,00 in accordance with the defendant's order.

The amount stated in a written estimate, invoice, and tax invoice for each of the above 10 items is KRW 17,424,00 in total (including surtax), not the amount actually paid or to be paid by the defendant. The actual amount is KRW 6,304,00 in total.

② In the prosecutorial investigation, M made a statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, and the contents of the statement are consistent with the statements in this court as seen earlier. And M’s investigative agency and this court’s statements are specific and natural, and its contents are not found any particular contradiction, and it is judged that M’s statement is credibility.

③ On the other hand, the defendant asserts that, in the case of documentary evidence issued by M, although there are differences in the purchase price, the defendant actually spent the amount of expenditure on documentary evidence issued by M in relation to the relevant item in the election process of this case. Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have falsely entered the details that the defendant did not actually spent in documentary evidence.

However, the defendant does not submit objective data, such as receipts, tax invoices, etc., evidencing that M actually paid money exceeding 6,304,000 won, which is the amount actually paid by the defendant, for the goods or services related to the election of this case, in connection with the individual 10 items of "Planning design and other expenses for election goods" in the election of this case, until this court, and M which provides evidentiary documents to the defendant does not include a estimate, invoice, and tax invoice for each 10 items of "plan plan and other expenses for election goods" as mentioned above. However, considering that M which provides evidentiary documents to the defendant is consistently stated from the investigation agency to this court, it is difficult to accept the above argument of the defendant, considering that the amount actually paid or to be paid by the defendant is the total of 6,304,00 won.

④ Furthermore, in the case of an election commission, the “expenses for which legitimate receipts and other documentary evidence are not attached without justifiable grounds” is not to be preserved (Article 122-2 of the Public Official Election Act), and the “legal receipt” as mentioned above means a tax invoice or receipt to be issued by the relevant entrepreneur in the event that the Defendant is supplied goods or services and pays the price to the business operator who is obligated to issue the tax invoice (Article 51-2 of the Regulations on the Management of Public Officials Election). Therefore, the document, such as a tax invoice issued by “L that does not provide the actual goods or services on the receipt,” cannot be deemed a legitimate receipt, and if the E City Election Commission knew of such circumstances, it appears that the Defendant would not have compensated the election expenses if he was aware of such circumstances. Accordingly, even if the Defendant actually received goods or services from the “third party” other than the “tax invoice,” the Defendant could not be deemed to have received from the “victim, etc. by submission of documentary evidence from the “victim, etc.” to the E election Commission.

According to the statement of the "Planning design and other supplies for voting use" submitted by M to the investigation agency, the defendant paid 2,040,000 won to AM for the purchase cost of the above receipts, paid 50,000 won to AK for the purchase cost of mother and child, paid 630,000 won for the production cost of shoulder belts, paid 630,000 won to AL for the production of name cards to be used in D election campaigns, and paid 2,50,000 won for the production cost of CD in 0. The contents stated in each of the above receipts are consistent with the prosecutorial investigation of M and the statements stated in this court, thereby supporting the credibility of the statement.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment for a month to 15 years, and a fine of 50,000 won to 30,000 won; 10)

0 Basic crimes and first concurrent crimes: Each fraud

[Extent of Recommendation] General Frauds No. 1 (less than KRW 100,000) and Basic Area (from June to June)

【Special Convicted Person】

○ Scope of the recommended punishment revised according to the guidelines for handling multiple crimes: Six months to nine months (the minimum of the basic crime shall be followed by six months of imprisonment, and the maximum shall be determined by one and half months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first half year and six months, which is the maximum of the basic crime, and the minimum shall be determined by two years and nine months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second half year and six months plus the maximum of the second half crimes).

3. Where a sentence of punishment for the instant crime is found to have been committed by the Defendant, who was a candidate for the superintendent of education, proposed supply, etc. related to the Office of Education in the future, and falsely recorded the amount of money as evidential documents, etc. for the preservation of election expenses, after gathering, such as a printing business operator, banner manufacturer, manufacturer of floating vehicles, planning design, and delivery business operator of other election goods, and thereby making up for the excessive amount of election expenses

As a result, in light of the fact that the Defendant, a person in charge of accounting of the candidate for the superintendent of education, abused the purpose of the public election system to acquire the valuable national treasury formed with the blood of the people for personal benefits, such crime is very poor, and the Defendant does not appear to deny and seriously reflect on his own crime, etc., it is inevitable to punish the Defendant with strict penalties corresponding thereto.

However, some of the amount of fraud is recovered to the National Treasury in accordance with the separate judgment, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime prior to the instant case, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (reconciliation) and the crime of this case in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that it is necessary to determine punishment in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time, and other conditions favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the application of sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission

The acquittal portion

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant and D used documentary evidence in which the amount of printing printed was collected to cover election expenses, and the defendant in the office of the Eth Election Commission of the Eth election commission in I around June 14, 2010, even though the actual cost of printing was KRW 70 million, the defendant did not have to submit a written estimate, tax invoice, contract document, and other documentary evidence as if the actual cost of printing was 121 million, and a written request for the preservation of election expenses accompanied by the statement of revenue and expenditure of political funds. D, around July 30, 2010, should not be found guilty of not guilty of the charges as stated in the latter part of Article 82,720,424 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was remitted from the public official in charge of the Eth election commission of the Eth City in his name to the bank in its name, for the preservation of printing expenses. Accordingly, the defendant did not have to be found guilty of the charges in violation of the latter part of Article 12724(25) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judge Lee Jong-soo

B and the end unit of the printing price shall be 70,000,000,000 won, and the tax invoice shall be 110,000,000,000 won and shall be so doing.

(1) Added value added to KRW 110,000,000,000, in preparing tax invoices, estimates, etc. on the basis of the price collected after G.

in light of the fact that the total amount of KRW 10 million is KRW 120,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000 actually agreed to be the printing price;

It appears that the value-added tax is not included, and 2 G has agreed upon the printing cost of KRW 70 million after the agreement:

The fact that the defendant requested the payment of the value-added tax as a matter of course on the premise that D should pay the value-added tax.

The actual printing price to be paid by D to G under the printing contract entered into between them is KRW 70 million if the value-added tax is excluded; and

If value tax is included, it is considered to be KRW 77 million.

2) Of the content of the crime described in this part of the facts charged, the part that “the defrauded acquired KRW 12,720,424,” and the part that “the defrauded acquired KRW 12,720,424,” as seen earlier.

The actual price of a printing contract entered into between D and G is determined to be KRW 77 million in the event that value-added tax is included, and G shall not be subject to

Since it appears that the defendant requested payment of the amount including value-added tax to the deceased, the defendant eventually submits false evidentiary documents, etc.

The compensation for printing expenses acquired by deceit by an election commission with excessive preservation from the election commission shall be KRW 5,720,424 (=the compensation for election expenses = KRW 82,720,424); - The amount of printing

70,000,000 + Value-added 7,000,000) and the part of the fraud of the compensation for printing costs in excess of the above recognized amount is a certificate of crime.

applicable if there is no person.

3) The Defendant returned from this Court to G via W’s account out of KRW 51 million, which was remitted to G at the second anniversary of the completion of the instant election at issue.

Not only KRW 29 million received, but also stated that he received KRW 9 million from the H Q division operated by G in cash. In other words, he received KRW 9 million in cash:

Even if the defendant's statement is based on the defendant's statement, the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she received the above 51 million won from G to return 38 million won.

4) The statement that K had calculated the price of the instant banner on the basis of KRW 9,000 per square meter under investigation conducted by the prosecution around October 2014 and around August 2014.

Since then, K is under investigation by the prosecution on October 14, 2014, and again calculates the proceeds of banner 8,000 won in square meters.

The existing statement was corrected.

5) K: 20,277,200 won and on the sales account books, the amount of which is the sum of 45,656,600 won for the return - 21,228,800 won for the value-added tax of 4,150,600 won for the value-added tax of 20,277,200 won

The difference between the sales amount of KRW 20,277,00 and KRW 200 seems to be the amount which is either erroneous or calculated by cutting the sales amount of KRW 100.

The statement was made (see the witness K's statement in the fifth trial record).

6) K = 20,314,720 of the price for banner calculated on the basis of 8,000 won per square meter per actual banner unit price, and D = 20,314,720 of the price for banner to K.

the difference between 20,277,200 won and 37,520 won, which is the amount obtained by subtracting the return amount and the value-added tax from the amount remitted, is due to the actual number of accounts.

The statement was made to the effect that it was made (see the witness K. and the statement in the fifth trial record).

7) The guidance on the preservation of election expenses prepared by the E Election Commission shall be provided to persons visiting the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office within ordinary limits

Expenses for providing foods of Category C are not those subject to preservation (Evidence records 6653).

8) On June 1, 2010, from AA’s account, KRW 16 million was withdrawn in cash from the NongHy branch of Nonghyup AH’s account, and from the same account:37:54-9:18.

On June 1, 2010, at a point of 10:9:58 A, four million won was withdrawn in cash. The agricultural AH branch and AI branch are located near D election office.

(2) the Corporation.

9) A tax invoice (Evidence List 91, Evidence Record 6219-6220 pages)

10) We examine only fraud on which sentencing guidelines are set.

11) Evidence records 6585, 6593, S, who are public officials belonging to the A Q Election Commission, are being investigated by the prosecution on October 16, 2014, and E-election on an excursion ship while being investigated by the prosecution.

After confirmation by the commission, it was stated that the defendant recovered 11,285,140 won for election expenses relating to banner which the defendant received excessive preservation;

See 6600-6603 see the internal report prepared by the E Election Commission around January 201, 201 by the E Election Commission

1,285,140 won for election expenses related to banners, which have been preserved by the defendant on the ground of the judgment of the court below, shall be included

section 32(2).

A person shall be appointed.