Attorney Lee In-bok (for defendant 2)

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 1, Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “No evidence shall be admitted as evidence unless it complies with due process.” In principle, not only the evidence collected by the investigative agency, but also the secondary evidence obtained based on the evidence cannot be admitted as evidence for conviction. However, in cases where the act of violation of the investigative agency’s procedure does not constitute a violation of the substantive substance of due process, but also the admissibility of evidence is assessed as going against the purpose of realizing criminal justice by preparing a provision on the procedure for criminal procedure and promoting harmony between the principles of due process and substantial truth and promoting the realization of criminal justice, the court may use the evidence as evidence for conviction. Ultimately, whether the admissibility of the secondary evidence is admitted should be determined based on all circumstances related to the collection of the primary evidence without following the procedure, namely, the purport and content of the procedural provision, the specific process and possibility of the violation, the degree of the violation, the relationship between the defendant and the investigative agency and the evidence collection, and the degree of causal relationship between the two (20).

11. Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do3061 Decided 15, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11437 Decided March 12, 2009, etc.

(2) The lower court determined that each of the above provisions is admissible on the grounds that not only the Defendants’ suspicion of violation of the Political Funds Act, but also Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s suspicion of violation of the Political Funds Act, that the Defendants received funds from the prosecutor’s statement by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, and that the Defendants provided funds. However, since the Defendants made a statement without notifying their right to refuse to make a statement, they constitute illegally collected evidence, they are not admissible as evidence. However, since they appeared voluntarily in the court which was made public in accordance with legitimate summons at the time of the first prosecutor’s statement at the time of the first prosecutor’s statement and received a warning of the punishment for perjury and voluntarily stated the fact that they experienced after being given an oath, their testimony constitutes secondary evidence that could be used as evidence of guilt.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the admissibility of secondary evidence based on illegally collected evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. As to the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendants guilty of each of the above facts constituting the crime (excluding the part receiving KRW 50 million from non-indicted 12) in the judgment of the court below, since the remaining evidence except the prosecutor's protocol against the non-indicted 3, non-indicted 4, non-indicted 5, non-indicted 6, non-indicted 7, non-indicted 8, non-indicted 8, non-indicted 9, non-indicted 10, and non-indicted 11, which pointed out that the evidence adopted by the court below as to this case cannot be the evidence of guilt in the grounds of appeal among the evidence adopted by the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the consent to the evidence of the Political Fund

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, it is justifiable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant 2 on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 12 during the period of the official election campaign for the 17th National Assembly member special election campaign for the 17th National Assembly member that was held by Defendant 1 on October 2005, based on the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, in relation to the receipt of political funds from Nonindicted 13’s president

As alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal to the effect that the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence selection or fact-finding.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Min Il-young