A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act by Defendant 8

The court below found Defendant 8 not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is recognized that Defendant 8 received a report from Defendant 1 to recruit party members for a period of time (name omitted) and received a report on the result of solicitation of party members thereafter, but Defendant 8 had Defendant 1 carry out an election campaign for the re-election of Defendant 8 in the course of solicitation of party members for a period of time, or there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 8 to carry out an election campaign. In light of the records, this decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be said that there is any illegality of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

B. Violation of the Political Funds Act by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Article 2 (5) of the Political Funds Act provides that "any person shall not contribute any political fund under another person's name or false name." Article 48 subparagraph 3 of the same Article provides that "any person who contributes any political fund under another person's name or false name in violation of the provisions of Article 2 (5) shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two million won." Meanwhile, Article 115 of the Public Official Election Act provides that "no person shall make any contribution to a candidate (including any person intending to become a candidate) or any political party (including a preparatory committee for the formation of a new political party) in connection with an election," and Article 257 (1) 1 provides that "any person who violates the provisions of Article 115" shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won, or any person who has received any contribution on behalf of any political party member belonging to the same political party, which constitutes a violation of Article 257 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act, which constitutes an act of donation under the same Article 3 (4) of the Public Official Election Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below found Defendant 8 guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the above Defendants' act was merely an act of paying party membership fees instead of the party members fees for those who did not pay the party members fees. The above Defendants' act constitutes an act of donation under the Public Official Election Act for those who did not pay the party members fees, and the above Defendants cannot be deemed to contribute political funds for (name omitted) party members under the name of those who did not pay the party members fees. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the above Defendants' act was not a act of donation under the Public Official Election Act for those who did not pay the party members fees. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 2 (5) of the Political Funds Act as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. As to Defendant 8’s appeal

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below found the facts as stated in its reasoning, and found that the "(name omitted) meeting of this case" of this case can be seen as a private organization for the market re-election of Defendant 8, and only seven persons who did not reach a majority of the persons eligible for the participation in the first meeting of "(name omitted)" were discussed to the effect that Defendant 8 was willing to attend the meeting, and that the specific procedure for the establishment of the meeting was conducted at the second meeting, such as the decision of the name of the meeting or the election of officers, etc., and that Defendant 8 participated in the meeting, and Defendant 8 participated in the procedure for the establishment of the second meeting, and even though Defendant 8 continued to participate, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant 8 of this part of the facts charged, and found Defendant 1 guilty.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act by establishing private organizations, as to whether the (name omitted), whether the (name omitted) meeting constitutes a private organization, the time of establishment of the meeting, and whether Defendant 8 and 1 conspired to establish the meeting.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)