2. BI

3. C

Attorney J, K (private ships for Defendant A)

Attorney L (Defendant B, private ships for Defendant C)

However, with respect to Defendant B, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant B and C respectively 272,750 won shall be additionally collected.

Defendant B and C are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Defendant A was a candidate who was a candidate for the National Assembly member of the 20th National Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the "total election") around February 2016 as a candidate for the above general election, and Defendant B was a person who was a candidate for the above general election, and Defendant B was a reporter for N Daily M. (the head of the headquarters), and Defendant C is a newspaper publisher and editor.

1. Defendant A

No person shall provide money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits to a person who operates or manages a broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, or other publications, or a person who gathers, gathers, writes, or reports, for an election campaign, and a person who intends to become a candidate for a member of the National Assembly shall not make a contribution to a person in the relevant constituency or a person who is related with the electorate.

Nevertheless, on February 2, 2016, the Defendant provided the above 50 U.S. dollars 500 (Korean Won 601, 250 won) to local entrepreneurs located in the territory of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, for the above 20th election campaign by having local entrepreneurs use the above 500 U.S. dollars as B and C's overseas travel expenses during the said period from the 9th day of the same month to the 12th day of the same month. At the same time, the Defendant provided the above 20 U.S. dollars and C with property benefits equivalent to 500 U.S. dollars to the above 50 U.S. election campaign by having local entrepreneurs use the above 500 U.S. dollars as B and C's overseas travel expenses. At the same time, the Defendant provided the contribution act to Eul who is a person with M. P, Q, etc. and the M. S. R.

2. Defendant B, Defendant C

A person who operates or manages broadcasting, newspapers, communications, magazines, or other publications, or a person who writes or reports news gathering shall not receive money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits provided for an election campaign.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired and provided financial benefits equivalent to USD 500 ($ 601, 250) with overseas travel expenses as described in paragraph (1) for the election campaign of A, which is a preliminary candidate for the 20th preliminary candidate, from February 9, 2016 to February 12, 2016, in the Republic of Vietnam, at the Hosiwon of the Republic of Vietnam society, through a local business entity.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Defendant C’s partial statement

1. Each statement of witness B, S, and T;

1. Statement by prosecution against U;

1. An investigation report (Submission of relevant data to informants), an investigation report (verification of the status of entry into or departure from the Republic of Korea of any person under internal investigation);

g. A report (verification of the registered information on the ship of internal investigation A), investigation report (A at the time of internal investigation)

Verification of Status under the Election Act - A person who intends to become a candidate), an investigation report (the identity of a person under internal investigation B or C)

(A) The investigation report (as to whether the person is the other party to the act of contribution in person B or C), and the investigation report

(Review of the election campaign purpose of internal victims), investigation report (report on confirmation of registration of newspaper business), investigation report

(2) the number of newspaper articles written by the Party B and C prior to and after the arrival of this case’s entertainment travel;

G. A report (verification of the fact that the domestic company B, and C’s V non-dispactation of the candidate V in competition), an investigation report (competitive)

The removal of newspaper articles 5 unexploited by the candidate V, the investigation report (the internal investigation person B, C) and the subsequent investigation report

After the election dispute becomes effective after the report of the non-literity theory, the trend of support rate and the relevance of election shall be verified), the investigation

Report (Report on the result of analysis of the informant's cell phone - Confirmation of the credibility of the informant's statement), investigation report (suspects)

B, C monetary analysis report), investigation report (the confirmation of the false statement by the suspect B involved in election campaign purposes);

A report on investigation (verification of inconsistencys with statements by suspects related to the coverage of travel expenses), investigation report (Preservation of travel expenses)

at the time-related suspect B's false statement) Investigative Report (after the suspect B's counsel interview, A

The reversal of the relevant statement that has preserved the guard fee, the investigation report (the return of the travel expenses by the suspect C)

1. Ascertainment of inconsistency with the statements relating to the circumstances in which it has become aware of the facts

J. C’s false statement, investigation report (the suspect B's telephone call at the time of coverage of travel expenses)

- Confirmation - Confirmation of the credibility of suspect A’s statement, investigation report (suspect A’s statement number and suspect A’s suspect A, B

Confirmation of the inconsistency in statements - Confirmation of the lack of credibility of the core defenses, investigation reports (suspect A, B References)

W and X-201 February 4, 2016 - Currency analysis - Suspect A’s credibility review), investigation report (4.

13. On the election day - Confirmation of the credibility of the suspect B's statement, investigation report (suspect B - Suspect)

A Review of the reasons why the details of the text messages sent and received by A are not to be restored - Confirmation of the circumstances of destruction of evidence), investigation

Report (2014. Report on the analysis of suspect A-related newspaper articles prepared by suspect C before and after the local election in 2014.

- In relation to the purpose of election campaign C by the suspect C, investigation report (general telephone conversationsd by the suspect B with A);

Verification of Insured Status - Confirmation of Identity of Suspect B’s Statements

1. Photographs outputs (A, informants), Kakakaoooooof course-fafagsing photographs (B, informants), Kakaoofs, Kaofs

A photograph outputs (C, informants), Kakakaooooooofegs (S, informants), individuals,

The current status of entry and departure (B, C, A), the disclosure of candidate information (A), the total number of lines, and the confirmation of official capacity.

Private outputs, outputs, such as Nday website system, etc., and newspaper history introduction column on the newspaper website;

Water, outputs of the current status of Eup/Myeon/Dong in M constituency, and Y website “school presentation column (including address)” output

water, newspaper homepage, newspaper box (including address) printed material;

1. List of Articles B, C’s printed articles, Nilbook, New North Korean Newspapers, and North Korean Korean Korean Korean People’s Japan (2.

10. Above 17.), newspaper, list of articles drawn up in B (2. 1.~4.7.) and Z (the first fluence of the French)

(1) On February 15, 2016, the articles printed by the author, the articles printed by the author, the articles printed by the author, and the number of newspapers.

- Related outputs, 3 copies of articles related to support rate-related articles, printed materials of rental-based analysis report, within currency

Part III of the reverse extraction table, 1.24. J. B printed articles, each currency content extraction table, and each Internet map.

The outputs, 1. 25. The printeds of the articles of the O-News, each currency content, 4. 11. The printeds of the articles of the O-News, 25.

Cropical outputs, O newspaper articles (on December 18, 2013, - January 14, 2016), and correspondence officer inquiry report.

1. On-the-spot photographs, local photographs, sirens stored CDs

1. Certified transcript (A), resident inquiry (P, BB, Q, R)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Defendant A: Articles 235(1) and 97(1) of the Public Official Election Act (Unlawful use of broadcasting, newspapers, etc.)

section 257(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, section 113(1)(candidate)

(i)the point of contribution by persons, etc.);

Defendant B and C: each of the public official Election Act Articles 235(1) and 97(3)(no broadcasting, newspaper, etc.)

It shall give and receive money and valuables for legal use)

1. Competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Unlawful use of each broadcast, newspaper, etc. with heavy quality of crime)

Punishment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money or valuables

1. Selection of penalty;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Conditions favorable to the Reasons for Sentencing as follows)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant B and C: each of the proviso to Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act [the proviso (US$ 500, X 1, 091 Won 1): 2 = 272, 750]

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B and C: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant A, C, and Defense Counsel's argument

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A

1) The assertion that USD 500 has been paid or will be paid in the future

Defendant B, on February 4, 2016, prior to his departure from Vietnam, converted the amount of USD 500 paid by Defendant A into Chinese currency, and repaid KRW 700,000 to Defendant A. Defendant B. Defendant B made a statement corresponding thereto at the beginning of the investigation, and subsequently, did not have been reversed and repaid thereafter. However, the above reversal statement does not coincide with objective documents by falsity. Even if the above performance statement is not recognized, Defendant A had the right to receive the above payment from Defendant B and did not have any duty to exempt the said payment, and thus, Defendant A did not have made a profit or made a contribution act.

2) The assertion that USD 500 was not actually used for travel expenses

T, a local business entity in Vietnam, has embezzled USD 500 received from Defendant A, not for Defendant B and C, but for personal embezzlement, and Defendant B and C shared most travel expenses.

3) The assertion that the facts charged against the press purchasing part are not specified

This part of the facts charged is merely stated as 'for 20 election campaign', and specifically, it is not indicated that Defendant B and C had a purpose of reporting or election campaign for the election of Defendant B and C. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the facts charged was specified.

4) The assertion that there was no purpose of engaging in an election campaign at the time of the act of offering profits.

In order to establish a crime of press purchase under the Public Official Election Act, money and valuables, entertainment, and other benefits are provided for the election campaign. Defendant A is a 30-year-friendly group with Defendant B, and Defendant C is a 50-year-old group with high school, and Defendant C is a friendly group with Defendant B and C. It is not for an election campaign.

5) The assertion that no election district does not constitute a contribution act because there was no election district.

Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "the term "contribution" in this Act means "the offering of money, goods, and other property benefits, or the expression of intent to offer benefits, or the promise to offer such things to a person, institution, organization, or facility located in the constituency concerned or an institution, organization, facility, or the electorate outside the constituency concerned". Thus, a contribution act prohibited and punished under the Public Official Election Act is a premise of respect for the constituency. However, the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11485, Oct. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)'s list of election districts for National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201Hun-Ma190, 192, 211, 261, 251, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) is not in force at the time of the amendment of the Public Official Election Act (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 201Hun-Ga16, Oct. 31, 2014.

6) Defendant B and C do not constitute the other party to the contribution act

Defendant B and C are not those who are the other party to a contribution act as provided in Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act, but not those who are located in the constituency in question, and even if they are outside the constituency in question, they are not those who have a relation with a resident in the constituency.

7) The assertion that the relationship was not known at the time of contribution.

Defendant A was unaware of the fact that Defendant A was the electorate of “P, Q, and R” as stated in the facts charged, and the fact that there was a relationship between them and P and P, so there was no intention to commit a contribution act.

B. Defendant C

Defendant C was unaware of the fact that Defendant A delivered USD 500 to T, and there was no intention to commit a crime of receiving money and valuables. In addition, since the expenses during the travel period in Vietnam were fully paid by Defendant C and B, the said money was not actually used as travel expenses.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A

1) As to the assertion regarding reimbursement

In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have received or to have received reimbursement equivalent to USD 500 from Defendant B. Therefore, this part of the allegation by Defendant A and the defense counsel is without merit.

A) Defendant B stated that Defendant A would have preserved the amount of KRW 60 to 7 million equivalent to USD 500,000 travel expenses until the prosecutor received six times investigation. However, Defendant B’s prosecutor’s investigation conducted seven times, reversed the previous statement and stated that Defendant A did not actually have preserved the previous statement, and the said statement is consistent with the same content from that time to this court.

B) Until the reversal of Defendant B’s statement, the Defendant B and Defendant A’s statement concerning the method of declaration of intent to preserve USD 500, time, place, method of preservation, amount, and circumstances after preservation were consistent with each other, and there was a change in detailed matters at each time of investigation.

C) Defendant B, after the seven-time investigation by the prosecution, did not preserve USD 500 to Defendant A, and made a concrete statement on the conditions before and after the investigation, etc., and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in its contents.

D) Since Defendant B’s compensation for USD 500 was favorable to Defendant B, it seems that there was no motive or reason to make a false statement that Defendant B did not preserve USD 500 at the risk of criminal punishment.

E) Defendant A and his defense counsel asserted that, on February 4, 2016, Defendant A and Defendant B, who were at the time of bad attendance by election campaign, were only granted time separately, and that the call content analysis was a very short time for not more than two minutes, Defendant A and Defendant B were to pay USD 500. However, it cannot be readily determined as of February 4, 2016 on the ground that Defendant B and Defendant A were at the time of delivery (the investigative agency and this court stated that Defendant B met Defendant A, who was at the early time before Vietnam, but that the accurate date was only a short time, it cannot be rejected solely on the sole basis of the circumstances that Defendant B and the defense counsel made it difficult to determine the credibility of Defendant B’s statement.

F) In light of the following: (a) Defendant A did not appear with Defendant B before delivering USD 500 to T (the witness B’s legal statement); (b) Defendant A did not demand Defendant B to pay the said money even after the lapse of several months after the trip of the instant case to Vietnam; and (c) Defendant B did not wish to pay the said money to Defendant A (the witness B’s legal statement) and it is difficult to recognize that Defendant A had an intention to receive the said money from the beginning, since he had an intention to receive the said money.

2) As to the assertion that USD 500 was not actually used for travel expenses

"Provision of money and valuables" under Article 112 (1) of the Public Official Election Act does not necessarily mean that the payment of money and valuables belongs to the other party, but it does not mean that the intermediary is a simple custodian or the delivery of specified money and valuables to the other party even if money and valuables are given to the intermediary.

It is reasonable to interpret that the provision is included in "providing money, unless there is a certain degree of judgment and discretion on the object, method, and amount of distribution of money and valuables to a person who is not a deceased person, but who is not a deceased person, even though he/she is not designated as a part to be attributed to him/her." In order for a candidate to constitute "providing money and valuables to an intermediary who is not a final right holder", it is sufficient for the intermediary to have the above meaning if he/she was a person with the above meaning of discretion. Whether he/she received money and valuables and distributed all of them to the lower-tier person, whether the former part or part was useful, and whether the use of the money and valuables was revealed, etc., do not affect any crime already established (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Do2189, Feb. 21, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do21948, Apr. 39, 2002).

Based on the above legal principles, Defendant A’s delivery of USD 50 to Defendant B does not simply keep the said money or have the said money used for Defendant B and C’s overseas travel expenses rather than for Defendant B and C’s delivery. In this regard, Defendant A and the defense counsel seem to have certain degree of judgment and discretion as to the method, time, amount, etc. of use of the said money (in this regard, Defendant A and the defense counsel did not deliver the said money as a pre-contract, but did not allow the said money as a travel expense, and there is no difference between Defendant B and C. However, in light of Defendant B and C’s use of the said money, it is difficult to view that Defendant A’s intent to use the said money as a travel expense, other than the pre-contract, and thus, it is difficult to accept the aforementioned assertion that Defendant A’s delivery of the said money as a travel expense, even if there is no specific intent to use the money for the remaining purpose of the pre-contract.

Therefore, the instant crime was established since Defendant A provided property interest for Defendant B and C with the above money, and the conclusion is not different even if T used part of the money thereafter.

In addition, 1) is likely to have spent minor expenses between Defendant B and C for about 3 4 days, including Defendant B and C, and 2) during the above period, she borrowed USD 200 from Defendant B and C (the witness witness and S's testimony) and 3) even before the investigation into this case commences, she seems to have maintained a close relationship with the Defendants, and she did not properly use USD 500; 4) it is difficult to think that she gave guidance to Defendant B and C for 4 days in order to embezzled USD 500, and 500 is not considered useful in light of the above circumstances. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17518, Mar. 1, 2006>

Therefore, the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) As to the unspecified assertion of facts charged

The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates the date, time, place, and method of a crime, to specify the facts charged, is to limit the scope of the case to the court and to facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of the defendant's air defense. Thus, the facts charged are sufficient if it is stated on the road where the facts constituting the crime can be distinguished from other facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the above Act, and if it is inevitable to specify the facts charged as above in light of the nature of the crime charged, the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful since the contents of the indictment are not specified (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Do1532, Sept. 14, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2002Do807, Jun. 20, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do475, Jun. 27, 2006).

In order to carry out an election campaign under Article 97 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, the term "for an election campaign" includes not only the active purpose of having people make a favorable report for election, but also the passive purpose of evading an unfavorable report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10451, Dec. 9, 2010). The various goals of this case are to be expected as a matter of course even if they are not specifically stated in the facts charged.

It can not be said that this interfered with the defendant A's exercise of his right of defense.

Therefore, the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion on this part is without merit.

4) As to the assertion that there was no purpose of election campaign

The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court:

In light of the above, Defendant A's act of offering the above benefit constitutes an act of "for the movement of election campaign" under Article 97 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, and therefore, Defendant A and the defense counsel's assertion on this part is without merit.

A) From January 2016 to January 2016, the newspaper in which Defendant C is an editor and publisher was published by a number of articles that criticize Defendant A’s MM market policy, etc. or that may raise negative perceptions about Defendant A. Defendant A. Defendant A’s preparation for an election at around January 2016, in preparing for an election at around 2016, “A does not have absolute nature.” Defendant A thought that it was good for Defendant C to know to the extent that he would be able to say “A” (written statement of prosecutor’s office by U).

B) Although it was true that there was a friendly relationship between Defendant A and Defendant B, there was a problem under the election law because the travel period of the instant Vietnam was an imminent election period, and Defendant B had thought that there was an issue. In addition, Defendant B stated that the motive for the act of offering the above profits was due to a friendly relationship, but Defendant B stated that there was an election campaign purpose (the statutory truth of Defendant B).

C) At the time, Defendant A was registered as a preliminary candidate for the election of a National Assembly member, and if Defendant A posted articles unfavorable to Defendant A as a result of a two-month election, the election may have an illegal effect. As such, there was a need to prevent such articles from being posted.

D) After the trip of this case, Defendant C’s newspaper did not contain a critical or negative article about Defendant A, and instead, an friendly article that introduces Defendant A’s policies was published.

On the other hand, article V, which was likely to be a candidate for the defendant A, was posted to V, on February 15, 2016 immediately after the above trip, with the purport that "the cans" and "the cans" are re-filled, and the suspicions against the above cans are growing again under the title "".

In relation to the above article on V, Defendant A and the defense counsel asserted that ① the above article was written based on the text message sent by Defendant C to Defendant C’s camp, and ② the time was concentrated on the intra-party competition, and that there is no reason to post the article disadvantageous to V because it is the strategic cooperation relationship with the other candidate, and there is no particular interest with the other candidate.

However, the text messages sent from V Camps and the above articles of Defendant C are very contradictory to the title, content, and the whole figures of Defendant C, and ② If you take advantage of the police in the light of the police station, it would be more likely that the article would correspond to V, a member of the active duty service of a democratic party, if you were to be in the light of the police station at that time. Therefore, the above argument by Defendant A and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

E) On March 18, 2016, Defendant C was determined as a candidate by Defendant A’s winning from the border line of the people, and Defendant C took the Kakakaox, “I am on the Kakaox. I am on the Kakaox. I am on the Kakaox. I am on the Kakaox. I am on the Kakaox. I am on the Kakaox. I am on the part of the Democratic Party V. I am on the tax. I am on one hand. I am am on the election. I am am on the way you want to be elected. I am am a text message of the content “.”

5) As to the assertion that a election district does not constitute a contribution act because no election district exists

Defendant A’s act constitutes a contribution act prohibited under the Public Official Election Act, but there is no reason for Defendant A’s assertion on this part as well as Defendant A’s and counsel’s assertion on this part, even though Defendant A’s act constitutes a contribution act prohibited under the Public Official Election Act.

A) M election district A was located within the criteria of the population difference that served as the reason for the above decision by the Constitutional Court, and was not subject to integration or subdivision in the subsequent election district coordination, and the amended Public Official Election Act set the same as that of the previous election. Therefore, it seems that anyone would have anticipated that the previous M election district at the time of the above contribution act would not change in the election of the 20th National Assembly members.

B) Considering the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act that strictly prohibits a contribution act in order to ensure the fairness of election, it is difficult to accept the outcome that a contribution act prohibited before is granted as a temporary blank period in a situation where there is no change in the election district.

C) The interpretation of penal provisions should be strict, and it is against the principle of no crime without the law to excessively expand or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the provision of a pseudonym in the direction unfavorable to the defendant. However, it is judged that there is no ground to limit the meaning of the "election district" as stipulated in Article 112 of the Public Official Election Act to the election district that maintains its validity at the time of the contribution act. In the same situation where the existing election district and the subsequent election district are identical, the defendant can sufficiently know where the relevant election district are referred. Thus, even if the existing election district loses its validity and the election district is not yet finalized, it is not deemed that the previous election district is subject to punishment against the defendant by deeming it as the relevant election district and punishing the act of contribution in the future.

D) Meanwhile, since the purpose of prohibiting the act of contribution in the Public Official Election Act is to ensure the success of the election to be held in the future, the "election district" as provided in Article 112 of the Public Official Election Act is not the election district for the existing election but the election district for the future which can affect the relevant act of contribution.

6) As to the assertion that the other party to the contribution act is not the other party

A person who is a party to a contribution act under Article 112 (1) of the Public Official Election Act includes not only a person who has a domicile or residence in the constituency but also a person who temporarily stays in the constituency. A person who is a electorate and a person who has a relation with the elector" means a person who has a certain blood-related relationship with the elector concerned, such as satisfaction, friendship, friendship, place of work, workplace rent, person who is higher than, or a person who has a relationship with the elector concerned, and is likely to directly or indirectly affect the decision-making of the elector (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9043, Mar. 30, 2007, etc.).

Based on the above legal principle, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view Defendant B and C as a person who is likely to have a direct or indirect influence on the decision-making of the electorate MM and who is related to the Gu resident, and thus, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion on this part is without merit.

A) The original domicile of Defendant B is located in the M constituency A.

B) Defendant B’s third village, D, BB, and Q, which is the workplace guard, is the electorate A.

C) Defendant C’s office in a newspaper where the editor and publisher are editors is located is located in a constituency of Maga.

D) Defendant C’s workplace watch, R, etc. is the electorate of M&A.

E) The news gathering activities of Defendant B and C are mainly conducted within MM, including M constituency A.

7) As to the assertion that he did not recognize a ties

Considering the legislative intent of Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act, it is difficult to interpret that it is necessary for a person who makes a contribution to recognize the individual relationship with electorates and persons who have relations with them in detail.

In light of Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C’s relationship, Defendant B, and C’s growth background, career background, activity details, etc., it is reasonable to deem that many people, such as Defendant B, C’s family members, friendships, friendships, workplace club fees, etc., were aware of the fact that they were the electors of the next mountain.

Therefore, the defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Defendant C.

1) As to the assertion that he did not know that USD 500 was provided

The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court:

In light of the above, it is determined that Defendant C had been aware of the fact that Defendant C had provided travel expenses prior to the above Vietnam tour. Thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant C and the defense counsel is without merit.

A) Defendant B consistently stated from investigation agencies to this court that Defendant A provided part of the travel expenses in advance to Defendant C several times. Defendant B’s statement did not have any unreasonable or contradictory part of the contents of Defendant B’s statement, and the attitude of statement was also strong.

B) In light of the relationship between Defendant B and Defendant C, there is no motive or reason for Defendant B to gather Defendant C by a false statement. In addition, Defendant B seems to have been aware of the fact that Defendant B provided travel expenses to Defendant C without any reason to conceal it.

C) Defendant C also led to confession on the first trial date.

D) The travel site is designated as Vietnam and the person who proposed to obtain the assistance of Defendant A is also the person who is also the person against whom the travel site is made.

2) As to the assertion that USD 500 was not actually used for travel expenses

For the same reason as seen in the above 2-A-2-2-3, the main text of this part of the defendant C and the defense counsel is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years; and

B. Exclusion from the application of the sentencing guidelines: In this case, the sentencing guidelines do not apply in principle, since the violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials due to the act of contribution by candidates, etc. and the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the purchase for illegal use of broadcasting, newspapers, etc. are mutually concurrent relationships.

However, if the sentencing criteria are applied based on the crimes with heavy characteristics among crimes with a reference to the commercial concurrence, the scope of the sentencing guidelines is 10 months to 2 months from 10 months from 2 months.

[Determination of Type] Group of Election Crimes, Purchase and Understanding, and Type 2 (Broadcast, Examination, etc. of the General Public)

Purchase for Illegal Use

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation: Imprisonment for 10 months to 2 years;

(c) Determination of sentence: Ten months of imprisonment; and

For the purpose of contributing to the development of democratic politics by ensuring that elections are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and preventing any malpractice related to elections, the Public Official Election Act strictly prohibits acts of donation which is likely to impair the fairness and transparency of elections, to interfere with the rational choice of voters, and prohibits acts of donation by providing money and goods to those who edit, gather news, write, and report publications, such as broadcasting and newspapers, in order to maintain impartiality and pureity of media that may have a significant impact on the result of election, and to ensure the fairness of election. However, the crime of this case is committed by Defendant B, the head of the regional press headquarters in which Defendant A is in the position of leading the public opinion of the relevant constituency, and by providing USD 50,00, a local press organization and the head of the local press organization in the constituency, which are the head of the relevant district, thereby impairing the purpose of legislation and purpose of the Public Official Election Act and impairing the fairness of election, and is likely to undermine the fairness of election.

However, it is reasonable to impose a sentence on Defendant A for the following reasons. However, it is reasonable to impose a heavier punishment on Defendant A.

① At the time when Defendant A’s election was opened, Defendant A also provided local journalists with some travel expenses by arranging the closed overseas commercial sex acts (the specific schedule of the above Vietnam tour, in particular, Defendant A’s assertion that he did not participate in the commercial sex acts, but this appears to have been false in light of the witness T, S’s statements, and the contents of the Kakakakao Stockholm dialogue). The profits offered by Defendant A are included in the provision of convenience, such as local guidance, in addition to the face travel expenses (the instant part was excluded from the subject of the instant prosecution), and the purpose of use of the money is related to illegal sex trading, compared to the mere provision of money and valuables in the same amount.

② Defendant A’s attempt to purchase press in the Republic of Korea seems to have been ultimately successful. The Defendant C, even before the trip in the Republic of Korea, did not have any good link with Defendant A after the trip, sent out the door to Defendant A at the Kakakao Stockholm conference with T, and published articles disadvantageous to Defendant A, which was likely to be a candidate for competition, thereby moving the device to the implementation.

Considering the fact that the amount of benefits provided in this case is not important, but that the issuer of a local newspaper purchases a candidate who is the head of the local newspaper and publishes a biased article about the candidate, and that the above article had significant influence on the decision-making of the pre-resident, the result is significant, that the purchase of the press for the fairness of election should be eradicated, and that the effect of the journal on the election of the journalist on the election of the journalist is significant to the extent that it can not be compared with the case where the journalist offered money to the individual.

③ Upon the commencement of the investigation, Defendant A attempted to destroy evidence, to reduce or conceal the facts of the crime by requesting the relevant parties or confirming the contents of the statement, and to search records stored on computers and mobile phones in the election campaign office.

④ Even until now, Defendant A was fully denied the crime and did not recognize his mistake at all. Furthermore, Defendant A sold the travel expense to the Plaintiff, who was the internal complainant, either embezzled the travel expense or made a false report.

⑤ Defendant A has the same criminal record that is in violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a contribution act. It is more likely to criticize Defendant A, who is well aware of the strict provisions of the election law, again commits such a crime.

However, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that Defendant A’s failure in the election and the result that each of the crimes of this case did not have any particular influence on the election, etc., and taking into account all other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s sexual conduct, environment, background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered against

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years; and

(b) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria:

[Determination of Type] Group of Election Crimes, Purchase and Guidance for Understanding, and Type 2 (Operation, etc. of Broadcasting, Newspaper, etc.)

money, valuables, etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations and Mitigations: None

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for six months to one year and four months;

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months and two years of suspended sentence; and

Considering the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act, the gravity of the instant crime, and the provisional trade between Defendant B and Defendant C under the above Paragraph (1), there is a need to punish Defendant B with strict punishment corresponding to his liability.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of all of the crimes of this case and the fact that the defendant B had no previous conviction prior to the crime of this case, the failure of the defendant A to commit the crime of this case in his election, and the result that the crime of this case in the defendant B did not have any particular influence on the election of this case, the punishment shall be determined within the scope of sentencing guidelines as ordered by the defendant, taking into account all other circumstances, such as the character and conduct of the defendant, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime of this case.

3. Defendant C.

(a) The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years; and

(b) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria:

[Determination of Type] Group of Election Crimes, Purchase and Guidance for Understanding, and Type 2 (Operation, etc. of Broadcasting, Newspaper, etc.)

money, valuables, etc.)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations and Mitigations: None

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment for six months to one year and four months;

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 8 months; and

In full view of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act, the gravity of the instant crime, Defendant C’s travel destination as Vietnam, and the proposal was first made by Defendant A, Defendant A was purchased to be able to maintain neutrality and fairness, and Defendant A was flickly appointed to Defendant A’s behavior to maintain impartiality and fairness as a journalist, and the fact that Defendant A was flickly expressed an urgent attitude to reduce and conceal his mistake by re-aflating the confession of the crime after having been given permission for bail. In full view of the foregoing, it is reasonable to punish Defendant C with severe punishment corresponding to his responsibility by imposing a sentence on Defendant C.

However, the crime of this case committed by Defendant A following the failure of Defendant C in the election

Considering the fact that there was no particular influence on Defendant C, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that there was no previous conviction prior to the instant case, etc., and taking into account all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the character and conduct of the Defendant, environment, background of the commission of the offense, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense, the punishment against the Defendant shall be determined within the scope of the sentencing guidelines as ordered

Judges Oil-ran,

Judges Gangwon-do;

Unless there are special circumstances, the value calculation should be based on the price of the prior public notice (and on the other party).

Court Decision 2008Do6944 decided October 9, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6944, Oct. 9, 2008). Accordingly, the exchange rate publicly announced by KEB on September 8, 2016, which is the date of this decision.

The amount to be collected for the above US$ 500 shall be calculated by applying the transaction standard rate ($ 1,091 per$ 1,091).