The Defendant was registered as the chairman of ○○○○○ Party △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on June 13, 2018 and as a preliminary candidate for △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on February 13, 2018, but was excluded from the border line of △△△△△△△△△△△△ City on April 9, 2018.

1. Violation of methods for competition campaign, such as the establishment of a similar election campaign office;

A political party shall not establish an election campaign office (one election campaign office within the constituency concerned) in the intra-party competition campaign, install and post a signboard, board or placard, directly provide its name cards or appeal for support at the said election campaign office, dispatch promotional materials prepared by any competition candidate once by any political party, and hold an indoor joint speech meeting.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on April 5, 2018 and April 8, 2018, conducted a competition campaign that selects candidates for △△△△△△△△△△△△ Party with respect to the “party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party ( Address 1 omitted) (hereinafter “instant office”) with a two-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-state.”

Accordingly, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 9, in receipt of orders from Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 5, in the above place from that time to April 9, 2018, prepared a statement of the Defendant’s promotion protocol, news report materials, and pledges, and collected by the Defendant’s supporters, and sent text messages to the managers of party members and non-party members, including “on the face of the Defendant from the phone of the public opinion polls, I would like to select the Defendant.” After sharing favorable articles and comments on the Defendant’s SNS, I would like to gather or disseminate “Good,” published comments containing criticism of the other preliminary candidates using another’s account, and planned a public opinion poll to verify the party members supporting the Defendant, and combined with the results of such public opinion poll, and conduct competition campaign, such as combining with the results of such public opinion poll.

이로써 피고인은 자신의 경선 사무소가 대구 서구 (주소 2 생략) ☆☆☆☆☆ 11층에 별도로 설치되었음에도 위와 같이 공소외 5와 공모하여 경선운동을 할 목적으로 유사 선거사무소를 설치·운영하여 경선운동 방법을 위반하였다.

2. Violation of methods of competition campaign, such as telephone publicity;

A political party shall not establish an election campaign office (one election campaign office within the constituency concerned) in the intra-party competition campaign, install and post a signboard, board or placard, directly provide its name cards or appeal for support at the said election campaign office, dispatch promotional materials prepared by any competition candidate once by any political party, and hold an indoor joint speech meeting.

Nevertheless, on January 25, 2018, the Defendant told Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 that “The Defendant confirmed the degree of support for the members of the party responsible for the ○○○○○○○○○○ party by posting a phone to the party responsible for the phone, and made a request for publicity as support.”

Accordingly, from 27th to 28th day of the same month, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted 2 sent a telephone to the 207 responsible party members of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party, and argued for support for the Defendant, “I believe that I will trust the highest member of the Defendant in the election of the △△△△△△ Party 10 (recommended’s name) in the future. I will be very difficult if I want to support the highest member of the Defendant with the same mind even with the thickness of the birth. I want to audit.”

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the method of competition campaign by complaining for support in the form of direct currency between the consignor and the receiver via Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2.

3. Violation of the prohibition of direction or solicitation for call forwarding for the general telephone;

No one shall answer at least two telephone numbers on at least two occasions by taking measures, such as call transition, etc., in order to have an influence on the results of a public opinion poll on election, or instruct, induce, or induce the same person to respond at least twice.

Nevertheless, on February 2, 2018, the Defendant instructed and recommended members of △△△△ Council, special assistant groups, execution teams, relatives and relatives, etc. who wish to receive ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the 7th floor office of Do-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Do-gu, 2018, to the effect that “in order to get priority over public opinion, it is necessary to call for a cell phone.” In addition, the Defendant instructed and recommended members of △△△△△△ Council, special assistant groups, execution teams, Do-dong and relatives, etc. who wish to get ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc. to the effect that they want to support her call on a cell phone.”

Accordingly, 73 members of the Do governor 15 and non-indicted 15, such as members of the Do governor Do governor Do governor, special assistant group, execution team, Do governor, and relatives, were opened a total of 1,147 wire phones from February 7, 2018 to March 8 of the same year as indicated in attached Table 1, and responded to the public opinion poll.

As a result, the Defendant took measures such as call forwarding at least two telephone numbers to influence the results of public opinion polls on election, and instructed and recommended the same person to respond more than twice.

4. Violation of prohibition of unlawful distribution of documents; and

No one shall distribute or spread advertisements, personnel records, documents, drawings, printed materials, or other things similar thereto which include contents of support or recommendation of a political party or candidate without following the provisions of the Public Official Election Act from 180 days before the election day to the election day, or which indicate a candidate's name, and only one person designated by a preliminary candidate from among those accompanying him/her, or appeal for support for a preliminary candidate, in cases where he/she is not an election campaign manager or an election campaign worker, only one person designated by a preliminary candidate from among those accompanying him/her.

Nevertheless, around February 15, 2018, the Defendant instructed two persons, such as Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 2, who are not election workers, to carry out the Defendant’s name together on the road of the 13 entrance of the Jinsan-dong, Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu 2018.

Accordingly, Non-Indicted 26 and Non-Indicted 2 distributed to the electorates a 1,000 price order per day from the time to the 28th day of the same month, including distributing to the electorate a publicity name stating the phrase “Defendant in the preliminary candidate for △△○○○ City, Defendant in the ordinary people market, and Defendant in the ordinary people market,” at the above date and place.

Accordingly, the defendant distributed name cards in a way that is not according to the Public Official Election Act, such as more than one person designated to influence the election.

5. Violation of methods of public opinion poll.

Where a person conducts a public opinion poll on an election, he/she shall indicate the name and telephone number of institutions or organizations conducting the public opinion poll before asking questions to those to be polled.

그럼에도 피고인은 2018. 3. 중순경 피고인의 차량 안에서, ○○○○당 책임당원 중 누가 자신을 지지하는지 확인할 목적으로 ♤♤♤♤♤대학교 ♡♡♡♡학과 교수인 공소외 1에게 ‘책임당원에게 전화를 걸어 피고인에 대한 지지 여부를 확인해달라’고 부탁하면서 SNS 홍보팀장 공소외 5 및 차명폰 공급책 공소외 28의 연락처를 알려주어 여론조사에 필요한 안내 문구, 명부 및 휴대폰을 지급받도록 하고, 회계책임자 공소외 29에게는 여론조사에 필요한 명부를 공소외 1에게 보내도록 지시하였다.

Accordingly, Nonindicted 5 offered Nonindicted 1 the answer to Nonindicted 1 at that time, which read, “I am lower at the time by the public opinion pollsing agency, and I am. (In the case of a reply that I support the Defendant, I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I

이어 공소외 1은 자신이 지도하는 ♡♡♡♡학과 소속 학생들인 공소외 2, 공소외 30, 공소외 31과 함께 2018. 3. 27. 17:12경부터 같은 달 31. 15:08경까지 경산시 (주소 6 생략)에 있는 ♤♤♤♤♤대학교 ♡♡♡♡학과 교수실 및 강의실에서 위 여론조사 안내 문구 서류, 차명폰 4대, 당원명부를 이용하여 총 1,270명의 ○○○○당 책임당원에게 전화를 걸어 여론조사 기관, 단체의 명칭과 전화번호를 밝히지 않은 채 지지하는 후보자가 누구인지 질문하고, 위 안내 문구에 따라 피고인을 지지한다고 응답한 사람에게만 경선 모바일투표 및 현장투표 절차를 안내하고, 타 후보를 지지하는 사람에게는 즉시 통화를 종료하는 방법으로 여론조사를 실시하였다.

After that, Nonindicted Party 1 sent the results of the public opinion poll on March 31, 2018 to Nonindicted Party 29, and Nonindicted Party 29 reported this to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a public opinion poll without disclosing the name and telephone number of institutions and organizations conducting a public opinion poll in collusion with Nonindicted 1, 5, and 28 on election.

6. Violation of methods in competition campaign and provision of money and goods related to competition through guidance on mobile voting;

The act of installing an election campaign office or installing and posting a signboard, board or placard at the election campaign office of a political party, directly giving its name or appeal for support, the act of a political party sending promotional materials prepared by any candidate for the intra-party competition once and the act of holding an indoor joint speech meeting shall not be conducted in any manner other than manner.

In addition, with the aim of being elected as a candidate or preventing any person from being elected as a candidate in connection with the intra-party competition or getting any competition elector to vote for him/her, no one shall offer, express his/her intention of offering, or promise to offer money, goods, entertainment, property interest, or public and private positions to any competitor, any competition-related person, any competition elector, any competition elector or any witness.

Nevertheless, in order to increase the number of votes obtained by the Defendant in relation to Nonindicted Party 1’s election of the candidate for △△△○○○○○○○○○ Party’s △△△△△ Party’s candidate, the Defendant found Nonindicted Party members who are not well aware of the mobile voting method in order to assist Nonindicted Party 3 in voting procedures, and had Nonindicted Party 3 recruit the number of persons to help Nonindicted Party 3 cast a mobile vote. Nonindicted Party 11, 12, and 13 prepare one set of two-thirds of the above recruitment number by region, and then inform Nonindicted Party 14, Nonindicted Party 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Nonindicted Party 13, Nonindicted Party 14, Nonindicted Party 14, Nonindicted Party 14, Nonindicted Party 17, Nonindicted Party 18, Nonindicted Party 19, and Nonindicted Party 20, Nonindicted Party 13, Nonindicted Party 13, and Nonindicted Party 14, Nonindicted Party 2, and Nonindicted Party 137.

그리하여 피고인은 2018. 3. 하순경 대구 서구 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 ☆☆☆☆☆ 11층 경선사무소에서 공소외 3에게 인건비를 지급하기로 약속하고 모바일 투표를 도와줄 인원을 모집해오도록 지시하고, 공소외 3은 그에 따라 공소외 21 등 58명을 모집해오고, 피고인은 2018. 3. 28. 및 4. 4.경 위 경선사무소에서 모바일 투표 지원 관련 오리엔테이션을 개최하여 그 자리에 모인 공소외 15 등 약 50명에게 ‘나를 지지하는 당원들 중 나이가 많아 모바일 투표 방법을 모르는 사람이 많아서 투표를 도와주는 조를 구성하려 하니 열심히 해달라’며 모바일 투표 지원 방법을 알려준 다음 지역별로 근무 조를 배정하고, 공소외 11, 공소외 12, 공소외 13은 책임당원 관리자(조장) 1명과 공소외 3 등이 모집해 온 인원을 2~3명씩 1개조로 묶어 편성하고 선거구를 기준으로 분할한 근무 편성표를 작성하여 각 조 조장들에게 배포하였다. 이어 공소외 4 등 각 조의 조장 37명과 공소외 3이 모집해 온 58명을 포함한 조원 79명은 2018. 4. 5.경 조별로 편성된 근무지로 나가 피고인을 지지하는 책임당원 중 모바일 투표 방법을 잘 알지 못하는 사람들에게 투표 방법을 알려주는 등 피고인의 모바일 투표 득표율을 제고하기 위한 독려 활동을 함으로써 총 284명의 책임당원이 모바일 투표를 하게 하였다. 또한 공소외 3, 공소외 11 등은 같은 날 위와 같은 방법으로 모바일 투표 독려 활동을 한 일부 사람들로부터 ‘피고인 투표 결과 인증샷’을 전송받기도 하였다.

After that, around April 12, 2018, Nonindicted 4 confirmed the number of persons called for the mobile voting in contact with Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 3, and reported this to the Defendant, and the Defendant ordered Nonindicted 4, “First of all, Nonindicted 4 issued money to Nonindicted 3 with the president of Nonindicted 4, who borrowed money to Nonindicted 23, would give money.”

이에 공소외 4는 2018. 4. 12. 13:00경 대구 중구 (주소 4 생략) ◎◎◎◎◎◎◎ 1층에 있는 홍보관 사무실에서, 공소외 3에게 현금 696만 원을 제공하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 4 to conduct a competition campaign in a way other than that prescribed by the Public Official Election Act. In collusion with Nonindicted 4, the Defendant provided money and valuables to Nonindicted 3, who is the person related to the competition campaign, for the purpose of having the competition elector cast his vote.

7. Offering money or goods related to election campaigns;

Except for the cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person shall provide or express his/her intention to provide money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, or promise, direction, solicitation, mediation, demand or receive such offer.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around March 11, 2018, ordered Nonindicted 29 in charge of accounting to return part of the amount paid to Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 27 as wages for the same day to Nonindicted 29, who was in charge of accounting, and ordered Nonindicted 26 to return the remainder to Nonindicted 32, and ordered Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 27 to provide Nonindicted 26 with KRW 1 million in return for election campaign, such as distributing name cards to Nonindicted 26, who was volunteer, and the remainder to Nonindicted 32, who is an election campaign worker, on or around March 12, 201, the Defendant provided Nonindicted 28 and Nonindicted 27 with Nonindicted 27, who was in charge of accounting, to return to Nonindicted 29, who was in charge of accounting, part of the amount paid as wages for the same day, and provided Nonindicted 29 with KRW 1 million in cash in return for an election campaign including distributing name cards to Nonindicted 26. The Defendant, from that moment, provided Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 27, as indicated 329 days in attached Table 18.

Accordingly, the Defendant provided money and valuables in collusion with Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, and Nonindicted 29 in relation to the election campaign.

[2018Gohap496]

8. Violation of the method for distributing the campaign promise collection;

A preliminary candidate for an election of the head of a local government may publish and distribute one kind of campaign collection of pledges that include the campaign promises and the goals, priority order, execution procedures, execution period, execution period, and financing measures for each project as a promotion plan therefor, and when he/she intends to distribute them, he/she shall sell

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspiredd to distribute the election campaign book with volunteers Nonindicted 33 and Nonindicted 34 of the election campaign office by selling it in the election campaign office, not in a normal way.

피고인은 2018. 2. 9.경 공소외 34에게 선거공약집 제작을 의뢰하고, 공소외 34는 2018. 2. 14. 18:20경 대구 중구 ◎◎◎◎◎◎◎ 1층에 있는 피고인 예비후보자 선거사무소에서 공소외 33에게 위 선거공약집 3,000부를 전달하면서 판매를 부탁하였다. 피고인은 위 선거사무소에 배달된 선거공약집을 발견하고 공소외 33에게 선거사무소를 방문하는 지지자들에게 선거공약집을 판매하도록 지시하고, 공소외 33은 2018. 2. 14.부터 2. 18.까지 위 선거사무소에서 선거공약집 3,000부를 판매하였다.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 33, the Defendant did not sell the election campaign book in a normal way.

9. Violation against the prohibition on contribution acts;

A person who intends to become a candidate for an election of a head of a local government shall not provide money, goods, or other property benefits to a person in the relevant constituency or an institution, organization, facility, or a person, institution, facility outside the relevant constituency, or any other person, organization, facility, or promise to provide such benefits.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2018. 3. 3. 20:36경 대구 수성수 (주소 7 생략)에 있는 ●●●● 식당에서 선거구민인 공소외 35, 공소외 36과 함께 모둠보쌈과 술 등 합계 56,000원 상당의 음식을 먹은 후 식당을 나가면서 공소외 35와 공소외 36이 추가로 24,000원 상당의 음식을 더 먹을 수 있도록 10만 원을 선결제하는 방법으로 음식대금 합계 61,300원[56,000원×2/3(공소외 35, 공소외 36 부분) + 24,000원(추가 음식비), 100원 미만 절사]의 재산상 이익을 제공하였다.

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement

1. Part of each legal statement of Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 28, and Nonindicted 12

1. The protocol of trial of the Daegu High Court 2018No597 and the Defendant’s examination protocol of Nonindicted 18;

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant

1. Part of the protocol of examination of each prosecutor’s suspect against Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 28

1. A copy of each police interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 6

1. Some copies of each police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 28

1. A copy of each police statement on Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 37

1. The statement of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4

1. Documents found on the vehicle, seized e-mail data, copies of passbook 1, text messages, preliminary candidate registration applications, election campaign workers, etc. copies of the report on appointment of the election campaign worker, etc., copies of the report on establishment of the election campaign office, and photographs and records of Nonindicted 3

1. The details of Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone sales report (the details of Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 2’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 4’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 5’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 3’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 5’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 2’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 4’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 5’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 2’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 3’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 4’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 5’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 1’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 3’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 5’s mobile phone sales report, Nonindicted Party 2’s cell phone sales report, and Nonindicted Party 2’s mobile phone sales report, and Nonindicted Party 3.

[2018Gohap496]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 33

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. The written statement by the police against Nonindicted 61, Nonindicted 62, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 35

1. Images, copies of news reports, Internet newspaper articles, recording notes, and cafeteria books and photographs after capturing each CCTV course;

1. A written accusation;

1. On-site reports (verification and investigation reports on the details of prior settlement of the person suspected of being entered in the restaurant account book, hearing of the staff of the election commission by telephone, securing part of CCTV recording data in a restaurant on the same day, confirmation of the name of the card holder and the details of use, confirmation of the card holder and the name of the card holder, on-site inspection of the accused accused of the date of occurrence,

Criminal facts of the judgment (the violation of the method of conducting the intraparty competition campaign due to the establishment of similar election campaign office)

Article 255(2)3, Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

Criminal facts of the judgment (the violation of the method of intraparty competition campaign due to telephone publicity, etc.)

Article 255(2)3, Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

○ Criminal Claim 3 (the point of call and duplicate response, and the point of solicitation)

Article 256(1)5 of the Public Official Election Act and Article 108(11)2 of the Public Official Election Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

○ Criminal facts of the judgment (the point of distribution of document by unlawful method)

Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

Article 5 of the Criminal Act (Violation of Method of Public Opinion polls)

Article 256(1)5 of the Public Official Election Act, the former part of Article 108(5), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

○ Criminal No. 6

Article 255(2)3 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

Article 230(7)2 of the Public Official Election Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

○ Criminal No. 7 (the point of inducing purchase and understanding)

Article 230(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 135(3) of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

○ Paragraph (8) of the facts constituting an offense indicated in the judgment (a violation of the method of distributing campaign promise collection)

Article 255 (2) 1-2, Article 60-4 (1) and Article 30 (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

Article 9 of the Criminal Act (Violation of Restriction on Contribution Act)

Article 257(1)1, and Article 113 (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment and Punishment concerning Crimes of Violating Public Official Election Act due to Purchase and Inducing Understanding of the Maximum Punishment and Crimes)

1. Nonindicted 18

Nonindicted 18, as the head of the secretariat of the △△△△△ △△△ △△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party, (i) opened a total of 268 wire telephone from February 10, 2018 to March 7, 2018, and directed and solicits members of the △△△△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and transferred their phone calls to their mobile phone calls, and (ii) directed and solicits the Defendant to respond to duplicate calls (related to paragraph (3) at the time of the fact of the fact of the fact of the fact of the fact of having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on December 7, 2018, and (iii) sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on 104, 2017.

2. Nonindicted 4

Nonindicted 4, as an election campaign manager of the Defendant, provided 58 persons, including Nonindicted 4, who were mobilized to mobile voting at the Defendant’s publicity office, with a total of 70 wire calls opened from February 18, 2018 to February 28, 2018, and provided 50,000 won (120,000 won per person) to Nonindicted 3, who was mobilized to mobile voting at the Defendant’s publicity office, and provided 69,00 won (120,000 won per person per person) over eight times, and notified Nonindicted 4 to five members, including family members, branch members, and subordinate employees, etc. of a total of 70 wire telephones call from February 18 to February 28, 2018, and notified Nonindicted 4 to "support of the Defendant," and notified Nonindicted 3 of the method of suspended execution of sentence of 20,000 won to whom Nonindicted 46 was responsible for the Defendant, 208.

3. Non-Indicted 1

공소외 1은 ♤♤♤♤♤대학교 ♡♡♡♡학과 전임교수이자 피고인과 내연관계에 있던 사람으로서, ① 2018. 2. 13.경 단기 일반전화 50대를 개설한 후 자신의 휴대전화로 착신 전환하고 총 14회의 여론조사 전화에 중복 응답하고, 2018. 2. 13.부터 같은 달 27.까지 피고인의 제자, 지인 또는 친척 8명에게 일반전화 착신전환을 지시·권유하여 총 120대의 유선전화를 개설하게 하고, 여론조사 전화에 피고인을 지지한다고 중복응답하게 하고, 그 대가를 교부한 사실(판시 범죄사실 제3항 관련), ② 2018. 3. 27.부터 같은 달 31.까지 ♤♤♤♤♤대학교 ♡♡♡♡학과 학생인 공소외 2, 공소외 31, 공소외 30에게 공소외 28로부터 공급받은 4대의 대포폰을 이용하여 1,270명의 ○○○○당 책임당원에게 전화를 걸어 여론조사 기관, 단체의 명칭과 전화번호를 밝히지 않은 채 지지하는 후보자가 누구인지 질문하는 불법여론조사를 실시한 사실(판시 범죄사실 제5항 관련) 등에 대하여 2018. 10. 12. 대구지방법원 2018고합295 사건에서 징역 1년, 집행유예 2년을 선고받고, 이에 항소하였으나 2018. 12. 20. 항소기각판결을 선고받았고, 이에 다시 상고하여 현재 대법원 2019도894호 로 상고심 계속 중에 있다.

4. Nonindicted 5

Nonindicted 5 is the head of the SNS team who was in charge of the Defendant’s SNS public relations activities and who established and operated a similar election campaign office for the purpose of conducting the Defendant’s competition campaign (related to paragraph (1) of the same Article), and ② around February 26, 2018, he opened 60 short-term general telephone (such as telephone number 1 omitted) in the name of Nonindicted 51. Nonindicted 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 51’s cell phone call call call, and made the Defendant and five team members respond to the overlapping “support of the Defendant” in the public opinion poll (related to paragraph (3) of the same Article at the market), ③ Nonindicted 1 was sentenced to the suspension of execution on March 25, 2018 to the 000 ○○○○○○○○ responsible for conducting the public opinion poll, and notified the Defendant of the method of conducting the above public opinion poll and the method of conducting the public opinion poll at 18th anniversary of the execution.

5. Nonindicted 28

Nonindicted 28, as an election campaign worker of the defendant, provided 11 chip (including 8 mobile phone terminals) opened under the name of the third party from March 25, 2018 to February 28 of the same month to assist him to conduct an illegal public opinion poll (related to paragraph (5) of the crime at the time of the market), and opened 50 short-term general telephone (including telephone number 2 omitted), and transferred to his own mobile phone after opening 18 times of public opinion poll (related to paragraph (3) of the crime at the time of the market), and provided 260,00 won in cash in return for the above election campaign (related to paragraph (7) at the time of the market), which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 201 Daegu District Court Decision 2018Da41630, Nov. 16, 2018; 2015. However, the suspended sentence of execution was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 100,000 won on March 26, 2018.

6. Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 41

Nonindicted 29 is an accountant in charge of the Defendant, Nonindicted 27 and Nonindicted 41 are the Defendant’s election campaign workers, and Nonindicted 26 are volunteers for the Defendant.

A. Nonindicted 29 paid official allowances for election campaign workers to Nonindicted 27 and Nonindicted 28, and partially returned, and provided KRW 3.29,000 to Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 32, a volunteer, with a total of 3.29,000 won (related to criminal facts committed in the market). Nonindicted 29 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and 2 years suspended execution on December 14, 2018 for the fact that he/she opened 20 short-term general telephone in the name of the mother-friendly and transferred to mobile phone and provided duplicate answers to public opinion poll on three occasions (related to criminal facts committed in the market).

B. As the Defendant’s election campaign worker, Nonindicted 27 provided official allowances to Nonindicted 32 in collusion with the Defendant and Nonindicted 29 (related to paragraph (7) of the crime committed on the market), Nonindicted 27 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million in the above case, Nonindicted 26 received part of official allowances (related to paragraph (7) of the crime committed on the market), and Nonindicted 41 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million in each of the above cases (related to paragraph (3) of the crime committed on the market), with respect to the fact that Nonindicted 50 general telephone was opened in his name and that Nonindicted 26 received part of the official allowances (related to paragraph (7) of the crime committed on the market) in collusion with Nonindicted 32, who provided them with an official allowance for election campaign worker (related to paragraph (7) of the crime committed on the market), and that he provided them with two times a total of 12 occasions

7. Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 3

공소외 11은 2014. 6. 4. 실시된 제6회 전국동시지방선거에서 피고인을 위해 선거사무장을 맡았던 사람으로 ‘특보단장(특별보좌단 단장)’으로 불리며 이 사건에서 피고인의 당선을 위해 선거를 도와준 사람이고, 공소외 12는 제7회 전국동시지방선거에서 △△ ▲구의원 ○○○○당 후보로 출마하여 당선된 사람이자 피고인의 선거 캠프에서 ‘언론담당’역할을 맡은 사람이고, 공소외 3은 위 피고인의 당선을 위해 일한 자원봉사자이다.

A. The above persons recruited the number of persons to help them to vote in mobile voting as stated in the facts constituting a crime paragraph 6 of the crime in its holding, organized two to three persons into one group, and supported those members who are not well aware of the mobile voting method among the members responsible for supporting the defendant so that they can vote in mobile voting, and participated in the crime committed by 120,000 won per day to the above persons (related to the facts constituting a crime in the market).

B. Nonindicted 11 opened five general telephone units in the above joint criminal conduct and one’s own name, and converted the call to a mobile phone and responded to public opinion pollss twice twice (related to paragraph (3) of the crime in the market). Nonindicted 12 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 200,000 in the Daegu District Court case on January 30, 2019, and a fine of KRW 300,000 in the case on January 30, 2019, and Nonindicted 12 provided three hundred and forty thousand won to three persons, including Nonindicted 24, etc., in relation to the above joint criminal conduct. In relation to the above joint criminal conduct, Nonindicted 3 was sentenced to a total of KRW 6,40,000 in each of the above cases.

8. Other persons involved.

In addition, since the defendant opened a general telephone with the direction of the defendant and transferred the mobile phone to a mobile phone and overlapped response to the public opinion poll (related to paragraph (3) of the crime in the market), 24 persons, including non-indicted 64, etc., were convicted of all of the cases on January 11, 2019, and five persons, including non-indicted 65, etc., elected as a Si Council member or Gu Council member, were sentenced to a fine corresponding to the invalidation of election. In addition, in the Daegu District Court Decision 2018Gohap531, the defendant or 7 persons, including non-indicted 66, Dongs and non-indicted 67, etc., were convicted of the defendant's participation in the criminal act and was convicted of the defendant.

○ Judgment on the legal argument (common) of the defendant and his defense counsel

1. Whether the competition campaign of this case constitutes the intraparty competition for which the method of conducting the competition campaign is restricted (related to the facts constituting the crime of this case in the market);

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Under Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the method of a intra-party competition campaign is limited to the “party competition campaign conducted by giving the right to vote to the party members and those who are not the party members.” However, the ○○○○○ ○○ ○ △△ Party competition (hereinafter “instant competition”) did not grant the right to vote to those who are not the party members, consisting of 50% of the total number of party members responsible and 50% of the general public opinion poll. Accordingly, the instant competition competition does not apply to the restriction on the method of a competition campaign prescribed in Articles 255(2)3 and 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

B. Specific determination

In full view of the following reasons, the competition campaign in this case, which reflects the result of the public opinion poll as in this case, also constitutes the intra-party competition to which the provision on the restriction on the competition campaign method under Article 57-3 (1) of the Public Official Election Act applies. Thus, it is not prescribed in the provision on the restriction on the competition campaign method, such as the method of establishing and operating a similar election campaign office, the method of asserting support through telephone call to the responsible party members, and the method of supporting the members who are not well aware of the method of mobile voting among the responsible party members supporting the defendant, to conduct the competition campaign in a manner that does not violate Article 57-3 (1) of the Public Official Election Act. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the defendant and the

1) Article 57-2(1) of the Public Official Election Act defines competition lines that are implemented by political parties to recommend candidates for public offices in accordance with the provision of Article 57-2(1), and Article 57-2(2) of the same Act stipulates that where political parties conduct intra-party competition (including public opinion polls that replace the intra-party competition conducted through the party constitution, regulations or written agreement among the candidates for the intra-party competition for those who are listed as candidates for the intra-party competition), any person who is not elected as a candidate for the intra-party competition shall not be registered as a candidate in the same constituency for the pertinent election, thereby clarifying that the intra-party competition by means

2) On January 15, 2016, the Public Official Election Act partially amended by Act No. 13755, supra, sets forth the so-called safe number (the number created to prevent users from being exposed to mobile phone numbers) in the newly established primary election as one of the primary election methods and sets forth various regulations on the primary election under Article 57-8, which provides for the so-called safe number (the number created to prevent users from being exposed to mobile phone numbers).

3) Meanwhile, the purpose of restricting the method of the intra-party competition campaign is to prevent the abuse of orderly competition by preventing the excessive competition campaign, and to prevent the intra-party competition campaign from being deteriorated as an election campaign and practically avoiding the regulations prohibiting the pre-election campaign (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8869, Mar. 15, 2007, etc.).

In the case of a competition by a public opinion poll, since the sample of the respondent in the public opinion poll is set at random, the scope of the other party to the competition campaign may lead to the whole electorate in the relevant local constituency, and it is necessary to strictly limit the method of competition campaign. Moreover, if the competition method is interpreted as not to be restricted in the case of a competition by a public opinion poll, it may be abused as a legal means of evading the regulations on the prohibition of advance election, etc., since the intra-party competition campaign is changed into an election campaign, as it actually enjoys the effect of being given an opportunity for a prior election compared to a candidate who is a candidate for another political party or a person who belongs to another political party that did not undergo the intra-party competition. Therefore, the intra-party competition by a public opinion poll method

4) In the case of “party competition campaign conducted by giving voting rights to party members and those who are not party members,” the scope of the other party to the competition campaign is limited, but the method of the competition campaign is more limited compared to the method of election campaign that a preliminary candidate is allowed under each subparagraph of Article 60-3(1) of the same Act.

5) In order to prevent the intraparty competition from being deteriorated by means of a prior election campaign, the method of a public opinion poll is intended to substitute or substitute for the method of actually voting through ballot papers or the Internet. In the event that an intraparty competition is conducted by means of a public opinion poll, it can be deemed that the respondent selects the candidate in response to the public opinion poll, and the concept of voting is the only concept established only when the finalized elector group or its list is established.

2. Whether the “public opinion poll on the election” under Article 108(11) of the Public Official Election Act includes “public opinion poll on the intra-party competition” (related to the facts constituting the crime in the market)

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Public Official Election Act clearly divides between the election for public office and the intraparty competition, and Article 108 (11) 2 of the Public Official Election Act 4 of the Public Official Election Act

In addition, “election” stipulated in Article 108(5) subparag. 5 of the same Act means an election for public office, but does not include an intra-party competition. However, the Defendant taken measures, such as call forwarding, etc. to influence the results of the public opinion poll on the intra-party competition rather than an election for public office. Since the Defendant conducted public opinion poll on the intra-party competition rather than an election for public office, Article 108(11)2 and (5) of the Public Official Election Act cannot be applied.

B. Relevant legal principles

A penal provision shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant. However, a systematic and logical interpretation that clearly expresses the logical meaning of the language and text in accordance with the systematic relationship that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the relevant provision within the meaning of the possible text is intended to make the most accessible interpretation to the essential contents of the provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2162, Jun. 14, 2007).

C. Specific determination

1) As examined below, comprehensively taking account of the language, structure, relationship, legislative intent, etc. of the provisions related to the Public Official Election Act, deeming that the “public opinion poll on election” under Article 108(5) and Article 108(11)2 of the Public Official Election Act includes a public opinion poll related to the intraparty competition is a systematic and logical interpretation.

Therefore, the prior defendant and defense counsel's assertion cannot be accepted on different premises.

2) Systematic interpretation of the language "election"

A) According to the various provisions of the Public Official Election Act, the term “for election campaign” (Article 60-3(1)5, etc.), “election campaign” (Article 122-2(2)5, etc.), “election campaign” (Article 122-2(2)5, etc. of the Public Official Election Act), and “election” (Article 96(2)1, etc. of the Public Official Election Act) and “election” are clearly distinguishable and used.

Article 8-8 of the Public Official Election Act provides for the composition, operation, duties, and scope of public opinion pollss. Article 8-8(8) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “Public opinion polls falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be deemed public opinion pollss for election” under this Act. The public opinion poll, which is not deemed public opinion pollss for election, is limited as follows. It is difficult to view that public opinion polls related to intra-party competition are included in the items stipulated in each of the above subparagraphs.

2. A public opinion poll conducted by a political party for the purpose of developing policies and campaign promises without indicating the name of a candidate (including a preparatory committee for the formation of a new political party) or the name of a political party (including a preparatory committee for the formation of a new political party).

B) Article 8-8(9) of the Public Official Election Act provides that a public opinion poll under the jurisdiction of the City/Do public opinion poll deliberation committee shall be limited to “public opinion poll for the electorates of the relevant City/Do.” As such, the public opinion poll of the instant case also includes “public opinion poll for the electorates of the relevant City/Do.”

However, Article 8-8 of the Public Official Election Act uses the phrase "election" collectively in relation to the public opinion poll (Article 8-8 (6), (7) 2, and (10) and the public opinion poll on the intraparty competition seems to be subject to Article 8-8 of the Public Official Election Act.

Furthermore, as seen in the relevant provisions of the Public Official Election Act, the public opinion poll organization shall register the public opinion poll organization and report it to the competent public opinion poll deliberation committee for conducting the public opinion poll. If the public opinion poll violates the Public Official Election Act or the standards for conducting public opinion polls (see Article 8-8 (6) of the Public Official Election Act), it shall take necessary measures, such as corrective order and accusation. As such, the term “election” is used even when the provisions on registration and reporting of public opinion poll organizations and the regulations on deliberation and measures

(3) Except those falling under any of the following subparagraphs, any person who intends to conduct a public opinion poll on election shall report in writing the matters prescribed by the National Election Commission Regulations, such as the purpose of the public opinion poll, size of samples, areas and dates and methods of the public opinion poll, contents of the entire survey, etc., to the competent public opinion poll deliberation committee by no later than two days before the commencement date of the public opinion poll. (6) The Central Public Opinion polls deliberation committee shall determine and publicly announce matters necessary to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the "public opinion poll on election" for the purpose of publication or report (hereinafter referred to as the "standards for public opinion poll on election"), which are necessary for the public opinion poll on election. < Amended by Act No. 8879, Feb. 19, 2007>

C) As above, the phrase “election” is used in the provisions that stipulate in relation to public opinion polls in the Public Official Election Act. If it is interpreted that the above “election” excludes the intra-party competition, it should be interpreted that there is no content and procedural regulation about public opinion poll in the Public Official Election Act. However, this cannot be a systematic and logical interpretation of law, and as seen earlier, even though each provision regarding public opinion poll is premised on the fact that the intra-party competition is included in the same, there is no ground to interpret that the “election” should be excluded only under Article 108(11)2 and Article 108(5).

D) Furthermore, even if a public opinion poll on the intraparty election as well as an election for public office is conducted in practice, the public opinion poll is conducted after meeting the requirements for registration and reporting in accordance with the Public Official Election Act and the standards for public opinion polls, and the public opinion poll on the crime No. 3 is also deemed to have been conducted after the instant public opinion poll is reported to the △△ Metropolitan City Election Deliberation Committee, and the public opinion poll Deliberation Committee on Election of Public Officials (hereinafter “Public Official Election Act or the Public Opinion Opinion No. Public Opinion Opinion No.

3) The meaning of “election”

Considering the regulatory structure, language, etc. of the Public Official Election Act, the term “election” under Article 108(5) and Article 108(11)2 of the Public Official Election Act means “a motive for election,” and it can be seen as a broad concept of “election” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3932, Feb. 9, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3932, Feb. 9, 2006; etc.). “Public opinion on election” is naturally separate from public opinion poll, i.e., public opinion poll on election, which is directly related to a specific candidate’s election or for election campaign aimed at a specific election, and it is reasonable to interpret the term “public opinion poll, such as a voting or election campaign, in a specific election, in which the matters relating to election are motiveed or borrowed” (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2017No2632, Dec. 7, 2017).

Ultimately, in light of the structure of the above provisions, the term “public opinion poll on election” is a concept that covers a public opinion poll consisting of motiveing for matters concerning the election, and since the intra-party competition that recommends the candidates for the election of public officials is the motive for matters concerning the election of public officials, it is more natural to view that the intra-party competition also includes the above matters concerning the election.

4) Legislative purport of Article 108(11) of the Public Official Election Act

In particular, even if examining the legislative intent of Article 108(11) of the Public Official Election Act, it is reasonable to interpret it as above.

Article 108(11) of the Public Official Election Act was partially amended by Act No. 13755 on January 15, 2016. The Public Official Election Act provides for the following reasons for the amendment and provides overlapping answers by taking measures such as conversion of identity by means of sample manipulation prohibited in the intra-party competition.

It is pointed out that the primary election of a listed political party, which is included in the main text, is a process for selecting a candidate for public office, and there is an excessive or mobilization problem with respect to the recruitment of electors in the case of partial national participation elections, and in the case of a candidate for public office, there is no actual intention of voters due to the representative nature of a sample group in the case of a candidate for public office. There is a case where some candidates open a multiple number of wire phones in the primary election, local election, etc., and publish distorted results of public opinion poll by manipulating samples by automatically sending samples to their own election office or athletes' cell phones automatically. In order to influence the results of public opinion poll, it is intended to instruct, induce, induce, or induce many electors to respond to false answers such matters as gender, age, etc., or by prohibiting, induce, induce, or induce the same persons from responding, or by punishing them at the time of violation.

5) The system under Article 108(11) of the Public Official Election Act

Furthermore, according to the structure of Article 108(11) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 108(11)1 and 2 of the Public Official Election Act prohibits strict measures to explicitly indicate cases of manipulating samples of public opinion poll. However, unlike public opinion poll in public election, public opinion poll for intra-party competition directly reflect or utilize the results of public opinion poll in the process of recommending candidates for the final candidate. Ultimately, public opinion poll for intra-party competition is more important in public opinion poll for this purpose, and if public opinion poll results are distorted due to manipulation of samples of public opinion poll, there is a high risk of changing the outcome of public opinion poll.

Accordingly, Article 108(11)1 of the Public Official Election Act prohibits a large number of electorates from conducting sample manipulation, such as prohibiting “an act of ordering them to respond falsely to gender, age, etc.” to influence the results of the public opinion poll for the intra-party competition. However, if the “act of changing the call for general telephone,” which is more likely to cause sample manipulation, is prohibited only in the public opinion poll for the election of public officials, and if it is interpreted that it is permitted in the public opinion poll for the intra-party competition, it is logically unreasonable in light of the regulatory structure or legislative intent of Article 108(11)1 and 2 of the Public Official Election Act.

○ Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel on the individual criminal facts

1. Judgment on the crime No. 1

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The office of this case cannot be deemed as having indicated that it is an election campaign office externally and objectively to the extent that the elector can recognize, and thus, it cannot be deemed as having established a similar election campaign office. Activities performed within the office of this case are activities such as promotional propy of the Defendant, news report materials, the preparation and distribution of a pledge, SNS, etc., which are merely activities such as promotional activities of the Defendant. This is merely an internal preparation for competition or an election campaign permitted at the time of time. It cannot be said that the competition campaign was conducted at the office of this case, and thus, the Defendant

B. Relevant legal principles

1) Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that any campaign may not be conducted in a way other than that prescribed in each subparagraph, and Article 60-3(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act provides that the method prescribed in Article 60-3(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act is the same. Article 60-3(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act provides that any preliminary candidate may conduct an election campaign in a manner that “by installing an election campaign office pursuant to the provisions of Article 61(1) and the proviso of Article 61(6) or by installing and posting a signboard, board or placard at the election campaign office.” According to Article 61(1) of the Public Official Election Act, one preliminary candidate for the election of the Mayor/Do Governor may establish one election campaign office (one election campaign liaison office for each Gu/Si/Gun in the relevant City/Do) within the relevant City

Meanwhile, in light of the legislative intent of Article 89(1) subparag. 7 of the Public Official Election Act to prevent excessive competition and waste of election campaign organizations other than the statutory election campaign organization, and to ensure the fairness of election by guaranteeing equal opportunities among candidates, the act of campaign by using similar organizations constitutes a violation of the restrictions under Articles 60-3(1)1 and 61(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and does not constitute a means of the competition campaign permitted under Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and thus, it may be punished pursuant to Article 255(2) subparag. 3 of the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6620, Nov. 14, 2013, etc.).

Ultimately, if a preliminary candidate for the election of the Mayor/Do Governor separately set up a similar election campaign office in addition to one election campaign office, it does not fall under the method of a competition campaign permitted under Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and thus, the act of violating the restriction on the method of the intraparty

2) From the date of the enactment of March 16, 1994, the Public Official Election Act stipulated that “the election commission, election campaign liaison office, election campaign liaison office, or election campaign organization shall not establish or install, on behalf of a candidate, an election promotion committee, supporters’ association, or resting area, regardless of the name thereof, or similar institutions, organizations, organizations, or facilities, other than the statutory election campaign organization.” The legislative intent of the foregoing provision is to prevent excessive competition and waste caused by the establishment of the election campaign organization other than the statutory election campaign organization, and to ensure the equal opportunity for election campaigns among the

Any institution, organization, organization, or facility violates the prohibition provisions of the main sentence of Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act shall be determined by whether it is established for election campaign purposes and is engaged in activities or functions similar to the legitimate election campaign office or election campaign liaison office. If any institution, organization, organization, or facility was established for the purpose of "election campaign" and it was used as an election campaign office or election liaison office, it becomes a similar institution under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10896, Dec. 26, 2013, etc.).

The term "election campaign office" refers to all fixed place facilities that carry out election campaign or other affairs related to election campaign regardless of its name, and considering the purport of limiting the number of such election campaign offices is intended to promote a fair election campaign that is not affected by financial power, force, power, etc., in determining whether a certain specific act is related to election campaign or other affairs, it shall not be determined formally in the name of such act, and the time, place, method, object, etc. of such act should be comprehensively identified and judged whether it is directly or indirectly necessary or directly necessary for the acquisition of voting for a specific candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do477 delivered on July 10, 1998, etc.).

3) Meanwhile, “election campaign” under Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act means an active and planned act that is advantageous to a political party for recommending candidates for public election, and that is objectively recognized for the purpose of promoting the election or the defeat in the election of a specific competition candidate, among all acts that are necessary and favorable for the election or obtaining votes in the election of a specific competition candidate or for the defeat in the election. Whether an act constitutes such a “election campaign” or not should be determined on the basis of whether the act is an act accompanying the purpose of promoting the election or defeat in the specific competition candidate, as well as the name of the act, namely, the manner of the act, and the time, place, method, etc. of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6232, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.).

C. Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant established and operated the office of this case for the purpose of the competition campaign, separate from the official competition office, and comprehensively grasping the timing, place, method, object, etc. of the act, the office of this case falls under the similar election campaign office, and the act performed at the office of this case is not merely a "act of preparation for election" or a "ordinaryly permissible election campaign" but a "act of preparation for election" or a "act of preparation for election" but it constitutes an active and planned act that can be objectively recognized for the purpose of promoting the election of the defendant in the intra-party competition for the election of the candidate for ○○○○○○○ City City Mayor. Therefore, the act of establishing and operating the office of this case falls under the method of the intra-party competition campaign permitted under Article 57-3 (1) of the Public Official Election Act. This part of the defendant and

1) On February 13, 2018, the Defendant registered the 7th nationwide local election market with a preliminary candidate on February 13, 2018, and “Intra-party competition for selecting candidates for △△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party” was conducted from April 5, 2018 to the 8th day of the same month, 50% of the total number of eligible members and 50% of the general public opinion poll.

2) Non-Indicted 41, who had been in the Defendant’s competition campaign, was in physical color in an appropriate similar election campaign office separate from the official competition office, and upon selecting the instant office on December 29, 2017, concluded a lease agreement on behalf of Non-Indicted 5 on behalf of Non-Indicted 5. The term of the said lease agreement was set as a short period of six months from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018 (Evidence 7192 pages of the evidence record) immediately after the seventh local election day, and Non-Indicted 5 used the instant office only until April 9, 2018, the following day after the Defendant went away from the △△ City competition office.

3) The office of this case was equipped with two books, two computers, two streetbooks, liftss, liftss, and other office equipment, tables, and other office equipment, and some office equipment, such as computers and liftss, are likely to have been directly provided by the Defendant, or prepared and provided by Nonindicted 26, etc.

4) After engaging in SNS activities, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 9, etc., who were SNS team members, made a statement to the purport that they received the address of the instant office from Nonindicted 6 in writing. As such, the persons who supported the Defendant’s SNS team members, through Nonindicted 6, etc., sent the address of the instant office to the instant office on the premise that the instant office is a place where the Defendant is engaged in the affairs related to the competition campaign against the Defendant, such as SNS activities. Moreover, the SNS team members, including Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 9, etc., worked in the instant office for a considerable period of time during which each of them participated, performed the tasks assigned to each of them.

5) The SNS Team members searched Internet articles related to the Defendant and the commitments, and reported special articles to Nonindicted 5, including articles related to the Defendant’s and the commitments, Nonindicted 68, Nonindicted 69, and Nonindicted 70, and reported special articles to Nonindicted 5. The articles posted the friendly articles against the Defendant on the SNS, such as Facebook and Blogs, and actively carried out the business of promoting the Defendant by putting up comments on the comments or dividing the “Good Abrogs.” In addition, the Defendant’s photograph and the video file work was carried out at the instant office.

6) The SNS Team members engaged in the work of data processing, classifying, and arranging the list of party members using the X-cell program at the instant office. The Defendant’s execution team members found the Defendant’s side and received contact numbers from those who were stored in his mobile phone, and sent them to the SNS teams located in the instant office. SNS teams sent the list to the execution team and sent it to the SNS. The SNS team used the list to send Defendant’s publicity letters through the person in charge, such as the severe weather report, Gongcheon, etc. (Nonindicted 26, 28, 27, 14123, 14136 pages, etc.). Based on the list of party members secured and arranged as above, the Defendant’s execution team members sent a number of text messages that did not report to the election commission from February 4, 2018 to April 1, 2018.

These activities are related directly to the competition campaign.

7) Meanwhile, Nonindicted 5 also instructed the above team members to perform the above duties, received reports on specific articles from the team members, and prepared election-related data, such as the Defendant’s pledge, and opened 60 short-term general telephone in the name of a third party, and ordered them to answer double response to the public opinion poll by moving to the cell phone of Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 9, which are the SNS team, and conducted affairs directly related to the competition campaign, such as ordering them to prepare and transmit the illegal public opinion poll sheet to Nonindicted 1, and allowing them to take the results of the public opinion poll.

8) The Defendant appears to have continued meetings with the relevant persons and SNS activities at the instant office, and managed and supervised relevant matters.

Specifically, at the investigation agency around December 31, 2017, Non-Indicted 2 stated that “The SNS Team members, including Defendant, persons who had been in the horse camp, Non-Indicted 5, and Non-Indicted 6, were gathered in the course of the Defendant’s proceeding at the instant investigation agency. At that time, the Defendant stated that “n’t and Non-Indicted 6, she would be well aware of SNS and database management at the future,” and Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 5, the prosecution investigation on December 31, 2017, stated that “The Defendant had been at the instant office on December 31, 2017 (this case’s office) one time, and had been at least two times on January 2, 2018. The first time had been within the meaning of returning to the Defendant, and thereafter, it was also stated that how SNS will return to the direction of SNS.”

9) In addition, around December 31, 2017, at an investigative agency, Nonindicted 2 stated that “this office shall be confidential. Before registering the preliminary candidate, the election office shall be inside, and even if the office is inside, it shall be kept secret,” Nonindicted 2 stated that “the Defendant stated that “the Defendant stated that he was “not only at any time, but also at any time,” and “ Nonindicted 5 stated in the police investigation,” that “The Defendant was “at any time,” and “at any time, at any time, at any time, at any police investigation at the instant office” (Evidence No. 7049 of the Evidence No. 7049), Nonindicted 28Do5, the Defendant stated that “The election campaign office at the instant office shall not be open, and shall be kept secret,” and the Defendant appears to play a similar role in the election campaign office’s use of confidential evidence (Evidence No. 1509 of the Record).”

10) Team members, such as Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 7, who worked in the instant office, have made a statement in the investigative agency and the court, using the expression “office” and “meeting office” as to the instant office.

11) As above, the office of this case took place various activities to make the Defendant elected in the competition, and on the premise of such objective act, the establishment and operation of the office of this case can be assessed as realizing the intent to promote the Defendant’s success.

2. Judgment on the crime No. 2

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Although the Defendant knew that Nonindicted Party 1, etc. engaged in the act of publicity on the phone that Nonindicted Party 1, etc. supported the Defendant, the Defendant did not actively block it, and there is no fact that Nonindicted Party 1, etc. instructed or asked to do the act of publicity on the phone that supported the Defendant

B. Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was not only passively silent or neglect the act of publicity by Nonindicted Party 1, etc., and rather actively instructed or asked Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2, etc. to appeal for support through telephone publicity.

1) 공소외 1은 5회 검찰 조사에서 “공소외 5로부터 피고인을 홍보할 대상 1,500명의 문자 발송 명단을 받았는데, 혼자 다 할 수가 없어 학생들에게 이를 부탁하였다. 이에 피고인에게 고생한 학생들을 격려해달라고 부탁을 하여, 2018. 1. 25. 대구 동구 ◆◆동에 있는 ‘▽▽▽▽▽’에서 공소외 71, 공소외 31, 공소외 2와 함께 피고인을 만났다. 그 자리에서 제가 ‘지난 최고위원 선거(2017. 7. ○○○○당 전당대회) 때처럼 홍보전화를 돌리겠다’고 말하였고, 피고인이 ‘보수에 대해서 긍정적인 사람들한테 반감이 가지 않도록 피고인을 홍보하면 좋겠다‘고 말한 사실이 있다. 그리고는 그 자리에서 홍보 전화 멘트를 만들었다”고 진술하고 있다.

2) In an investigative agency and this court consistently stated, Nonindicted Party 2, “In the foregoing place on January 25, 2018, there is no same rule as a rule because of the fact that the Defendant was not a game.” The head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall be responsible for the entire party members. They must return the phone call from the entire party members and grasp the nature of the party members. They must manage the party members who support them to vote. It is important for them to do so. They explained that they are A1 and week 11) A2, and provided an explanation about the examination record, evidence, evidence, evidence, and Nonindicted Party 31 also made a statement to the effect that “on the part of the Defendant,” “on the last day of the election, at the investigative agency, from the Defendant” is a war, and “on the part of Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that it conforms to the aforementioned evidence” (Article 4923 and 15701).

3) In order to prevent the Defendant from being forgotten, Non-Indicted 2 put the contents of the Defendant’s speech on hand-on, and “A1” along with a promotional telephone ment, as well as a mentor, is to make the Defendant’s name enter, and the A2 is convictioned. Our letter is not our part. The commitment, A1, and A2 are written as a policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based policy-based (Article 889, No. 11429 of the Evidence Records). The contents of Non-Indicted 2’s shape are consistent with the above statement of Non-Indicted 2, and the Defendant appears to have ordered that the method of public relations would vary depending on whether or not supporting the Defendant’s name

3. Judgment on the crime No. 3

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Although there was a fact that the defendant asked the non-indicted 1 and the execution team members to open a general telephone and take measures for call forwarding, the fact that the defendant requested the rest of the non-indicted 1 and the execution team members to do so is not true.

B. Specific determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant opened a general telephone for the persons indicated in the attached Table 1, including the Seocho Police Office meeting on February 2, 2018, and instructed or asked to change the call to the cell phone. This part of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

1) In this Court, Nonindicted 15, who was a candidate for Si Council members, clearly stated in this Court that “The Defendant’s statement is a false statement,” and that Nonindicted 15, who was a candidate for Si Council members, was present at the meeting of Nonindicted 72, Nonindicted 73, Nonindicted 74, Nonindicted 75, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 76, Nonindicted 77, Nonindicted 78, and Nonindicted 65, the chairman of each Dong, and the last party of the Defendant. At that meeting, the Defendant should take precedence over the public opinion on “the meeting.” In addition, Nonindicted 15, who stated that Nonindicted 15, “the Defendant’s statement is a false statement.” Moreover, I tried to see how to continue to start with Non-Indicted 18.”

2) △△ ▲구의원으로 출마하고자 했던 공소외 37은 수사기관에서 “회의 때 피고인이 ‘여론조사 응답률을 높이기 위해서 일반전화를 많이 만들어서 휴대폰으로 착신을 걸면 여론조사 전화를 많이 받을 수 있다’고 말했다. 공소외 18은 그 자리에서 10대 이상씩 가입을 하고 세부적인 가입절차, 방법, 요금 등에 대하여 설명하였고, ‘가입 후 가입한 전화 대수를 보고해달라‘고 하였다”(증거기록 제11314쪽)고 진술하였고, 법정에서도 이와 같은 취지로 증언하였다.

3) △△ ▲구의원 ◁◁◁ ★ 선거구에 출마했다가 낙선한 공소외 38은 수사기관 및 법정에서 “당협사무실에서 공소외 18이 ‘착신전환을 10대씩 해달라’고 말하였고, 그 자리에는 피고인도 함께 있었다. 제가 ‘그거는 안된다’고 하였더니 피고인이 옆에서 듣고 있다가 ‘괜찮다. 내가 관계 없으이 하라카지. 문제있으면 하라카겠나’고 고함을 쳤다. 그러나 불법인 것을 알고 있어서 전화가입을 하지 않았다”고 일관되고 구체적으로 진술하고 있다(공소외 38에 대한 증인신문조서, 증거기록 제11409쪽).

4) Nonindicted 39, who was seeking to go out of the Gu as Gu council members, made a consistent and concrete statement from the investigative agency to this court that “it is important in the first place of February, at the beginning of this court, the Defendant, who was in the middle of this court.” However, it is possible to have a variety of general telephone calls and conduct a public opinion poll. In addition, Nonindicted 18 Director-General explained the detailed methods for opening short-term telephone calls and responding to call-up public opinion polls and call-up public opinion poll, and made a consistent and detailed statement (Article 5835 of the evidence examination protocol and evidence record as to Nonindicted 39).

Furthermore, at an investigative agency, Nonindicted 39 stated that “The Defendant and Nonindicted 18, at a meeting that had been after that time, participated in the so-called “Guidegate.” In addition, Nonindicted 39 stated that Nonindicted 18 should be aware of the fact of opening a new opening to Nonindicted 18 by sending his/her license pictures to Nonindicted 18, without having to visit the telephone station separately for opening a short-term telephone. Accordingly, Nonindicted 18, if he/she sent his/her license pictures to Nonindicted 18, without having to visit the telephone station separately. Accordingly, Nonindicted 39 stated that “The fact of opening a new opening is deemed to be necessary to confirm the loyalty of the Defendant.” (Evidence record No. 5837, 12452).

5) 공소외 29는 수사기관에서 “피고인이 대구 ▼▼▼▼▼▼ 부근에 있는 선거사무실에서 저, 공소외 33, 공소외 61에게 ’어느 모임에 누구는 단기 착신전화를 몇 건 했다고 하더라. 니는 몇건 했노‘라고 물어 무언의 압박을 받아 할 수 없이 모친 공소외 79의 명의로 20대를 개설하였다. 피고인이 명시적으로 착신전환하라고 하지는 않았지만, 당연히 착신전환하는 것을 전제로 말을 했다”고 진술하였다(증거기록 제12778쪽, 15936쪽).

6) In the mobile phone of Nonindicted 28, it is confirmed that Nonindicted 28 puts up on the phone page, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 29, and SNS Team members, Nonindicted 41 week 12, or Nonindicted 33) (or Nonindicted 33) of Nonindicted 41 week 12, on March 5, 2018, Nonindicted 19: (i) Nonindicted 28’s statement that “the candidate’s phone number number for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for the call for 1.

7) While denying this part of the Defendant’s order, Nonindicted 18 of the 2018No597 case on the Defendant’s newspaper, the Secretary General instructed the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant was an urgent promise that the Defendant was leading to the early conference on February 10, 2018, and sent it to the participants of the conference. In response to the public opinion poll, the Defendant first demanded to open at least 10 short-term telephones and instructed the members of the operation committee to open and call to cell phone in preparation for the public opinion poll, and after the early after the early opening of the meeting, the method of call forwarding was changed and recommended by the Defendant’s direction. The Defendant instructed the members of the operation committee to look at the current status of opening and read it at the meeting held every Saturday, and reported the current status of opening through Nonindicted 33 election campaign campaign workers.”

8) In addition, Nonindicted 75, Nonindicted 65, and Nonindicted 80 made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant recommended the call.”

한편, 피고인이 아니라 직접적으로는 공소외 1, 공소외 18, 공소외 4 등으로부터 착신전환 전화 개설을 의뢰받은 사람들에 대하여 보건대, 피고인이 ◁◁◁ 당협회의를 비롯하여 여러 자리에서 지속적으로 착신전환 가입 지시·권유를 해왔고, 착신전환의 중요성을 여러 차례에 걸쳐 강조하였던 것으로 보이는 점, 그 밖에 피고인은 수행팀이 있는 자리에서도 전화 개설을 지시하였고, 피고인의 사적 모임 ’◀◀◀‘ 소속인 공소외 80, 공소외 81 또한 피고인으로부터 전화 가입 권유를 받았던 것으로 보이는 점, 앞서 본 바와 같이 공소외 1, 공소외 18, 공소외 4는 제자, 지인, 당협 소속 구성원 등에게 유선전화를 개설시켜 그들의 휴대전화로 착신전환한 다음, 여론조사 전화에 중복 응답하도록 지시·권유하였다는 등의 범죄사실로 유죄판결을 선고받은 점, 공소외 1, 공소외 18, 공소외 4의 지위, 역할 및 피고인과의 관계에 비추어 볼 때, 이들은 피고인이 내세우는 단기일반전화 개설 및 착신전환을 통한 여론조사 응답률 제고 전략을 충분히 공감하고 있었던 것으로 보이고, 피고인 또한 위 사람들이 자신의 지인들에게 착신전환 조치를 취해줄 것을 부탁할 것이라는 것을 충분히 알고 있었다고 보이는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 이들의 전화 착신전환 조치에 피고인의 개입이 없었다고 보기는 어렵다.

9) 공소외 4는 ‘피고인이 다른 사람에게 일반전화 착신전환 지시를 하는 것을 본 적이 없다’고 진술하고 있으나, 공소외 4는 주로 ▼▼▼▼▼▼에 있는 홍보관(선거사무소)에 위치해 있었고, 비록 직함은 ‘선거사무장’이었지만 자신의 개인 사업으로 인해 선거사무소 등에도 자주 참석하지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점, 공소외 4는 자신의 가족, 지인, 부하 직원 등 5명에게만 착신전환 및 중복응답을 권유한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 위 공소외 4의 진술만으로는 피고인이 위와 같은 지시를 하였다는 사실을 배척하기 어렵다.

10) After the Defendant’s high school, Nonindicted 82 stated in this Court that “Non-Indicted 82 did not open or cross-faced the phone by receiving instructions from the Defendant, and this was intended to seek students to receive extra call.” However, Nonindicted 82 stated that “a confession made in a lower trial is false confession.” However, upon the Defendant’s request, Non-Indicted 82 opened and opened a ten-year phone to respond to the public opinion poll. Nonindicted 82, unlike the police investigation, stated that Non-Indicted 82 opened a short-term general telephone due to public relations in the police investigation, it is difficult to view that Non-Indicted 8’s statement to the effect that Non-Indicted 8’s statement was excessive, and that Non-Indicted 8’s statement was not made by the Defendant, and that Non-Indicted 8’s statement was not made by the Defendant, and that it did not go against the rule of experience, thereby making it difficult to see that the Defendant made a false statement and her statement to the public.

4. Judgment on the crime No. 4

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

The Defendant did not have had Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 2, etc., who are not election campaign workers, distribute the name cards at the same time, and distributed the name cards in excess of “designated one person”.

B. Specific determination

Except for the election campaign workers, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, and Nonindicted 41, a person other than the election campaign workers may distribute only one person designated. Therefore, whether Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 2 ( Nonindicted 32, mobilized on behalf of Nonindicted 2 after February 28, 2018), other than the election campaign workers, have distributed the name cards at the same time, and whether the Defendant was aware of such circumstances are the issues of this part.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 2 appear to have distributed name cards together on the spot, and at least the Defendant knew that Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 2 were to distribute name cards together from February 15, 2018 to February 28 of the same month. Accordingly, this part of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

1) Around February 15, 2018, Nonindicted Party 2 received a request from the Defendant for a direct order from the investigative agency and this court stated that “Nonindicted Party 2, who was asked to do so with Nonindicted Party 2, 27, Nonindicted 28, and Nonindicted 41, etc.” at the investigative agency and this court, read that Nonindicted Party 2, when he was informed of the order, he was at the same time Nonindicted Party 26. A approximately 70-80% of the name cards was sent to Nonindicted Party 26. During the period when he was informed of the order, he was at the time when he did not appear. There was no time only one designated “the name tag was worn.” Nonindicted Party 2, who was distributed the name cards to Nonindicted Party 26 on a shift with Nonindicted Party 26, who was at all 26.” (Evidence record No. 15275-15276 pages, etc.).

2) In Nonindicted 26’s telephone investigation with the prosecution, Nonindicted 26 also stated that “I, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 2 always asked the same name, and Nonindicted 32 asked Nonindicted 32, even after entering Nonindicted 2 on behalf of Nonindicted 32, to always carry out the same name with Nonindicted 32 (Evidence Records No. 15287).”

3) Nonindicted 29 appears to have taught Nonindicted 29, who distributed the name cards, including Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 26, that “one or only a designated person, shall not be able to see.” However, Nonindicted 2 stated in this court and investigative agency that “Although there was a little fluence that one or only a person designated by Nonindicted 29 would not be able to see that he or she was a designated one, there was no person who explained at the site that he or she was not able to see because he or she was not a designated one, and that he or she was not able to see because he or she was not a designated one at the site.” (Article 894 of the Protocol of the Examination of Witnesses and the Record of Evidence against Nonindicted 2).

In addition, Nonindicted 32, who distributed name cards at the executing team on behalf of Nonindicted 2, from March 2018, stated that “The Defendant 32, who was aware of the fact that he was working on behalf of Nonindicted 2, she was seeing that he was well aware of the fact that he was working on the day when she was working on. When considering the Defendant, she was well aware of the fact that she was well-known. The Defendant did not speak her name cards at the site, and she did not speak her name cards at the site, and she did her “I” (Evidence No. 13040-13043 of the evidence record), and Nonindicted 29 were only located in the office, and did not appear at the scene to her name cards, and Nonindicted 2 appears to have distributed the name cards to the Defendant who was well-known in view of the fact that he did not appear to have distributed the name cards to the designated witness at the site.”

4) The Defendant asserts to the effect that a person, who is not a designated one, was only the role of supplying the name cards to the persons who would bring about the name cards in the first place and distribute them directly, but Nonindicted 2 said that “the punishment of election clerks would go in preparing the name cards. From the time when the head of the first place to the election, the head of the election clerks would put the name cards in the first place, and distributed the name cards going in the first place while going in the second place. If other election campaign workers were to be deprived of the name, there was no need to bring the name cards up until the first place to the second place, and there was no need to bring the name cards up by the first place to the first place.

5) In this court, Nonindicted 28 also stated that “Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 41 are well-known, and Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 32 are protruding, but they are protruding to memory.”

5. Judgment on the crime No. 5

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

In order to confirm the intention of support for the accused against Nonindicted Party 1 and request publicity to the responsible party, the fact that the accused asked questions to who support the candidate without disclosing the name and telephone number of the public opinion poll institution and organization as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment, and only the person who responded to the support of the defendant in accordance with the above guidance phrase was informed of the process of light mobile voting and on-site voting.

However, considering the fact that the subject is limited to ○○○○○○ Party’s responsible party, and its purpose is to confirm the support of the Defendant, it is difficult to view it as “public opinion poll on election” under Article 108(5) of the Public Official Election Act.

B. Specific determination

1) The term “public opinion polls” as referred to in Article 108(5) of the Public Official Election Act refers to an investigation to the effect that a certain sample is gathered in order to identify public opinion of any social group in connection with an election or intra-party competition, and that the sample is “to collect answers by making inquiries.”

2) In collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, the Defendant was going to run the primary election for the candidate for the election of the candidate for the ○○○○○ City City ○○○○○ City ○○○○○ City ○○○○○ City ○○○○○○ City ○○○○ City ○○, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1, who supports the candidate from among the candidates for the △△△ City ○○○○ City ○○○○○ City ○○○○○○ City ○○○○ City ○○○, from March 27, 2018 to March 31, 2018. As such, it is recognized that the Defendant conducted an investigation to grasp the answer in the form of the questionnaire stating that the Defendant, ② Nonindicted Party 70, ③ Nonindicted 68, and ④ did not support, this constitutes a “public opinion polls on the election” as provided for in the said Public Official Election Act.

3) As the Defendant asserts, the subject of the public opinion poll is limited to “○○○○ Party responsible”, or there is no reason to regard that only those who responded to support the Defendant using such public opinion poll as a tool or means and provided guidance on the mobile voting procedure, etc. to those who support other candidates and went to a kind of illegal competition campaign terminating a call.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion.

6. Judgment on the crime No. 6

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1) The fact that Nonindicted 4 delivered KRW 6,960,00 to Nonindicted 3 via Nonindicted 4 is recognized. However, there is no fact that the Defendant promised to pay to volunteers or Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 3 demanded that Nonindicted 3 pay the Aarbane cost after the instant warning line, and Nonindicted 4 paid the said money by borrowing the money from Nonindicted 23 (Nonindicted 4A), and simply allowing Nonindicted 23 to pay the money ex post facto and passive. In other words, the Defendant did not intervene in the provision of this part.

2) The act of mobile voting guidance does not constitute a pure guidance act conducted without the purpose of winning the Defendant in the instant competition, which does not constitute a competition campaign.

3) Since Nonindicted 3, who is only one of the volunteers, played a role as a broker to recruit the helpers for guidance on mobile voting method at the Defendant’s request, it does not constitute “persons related to the competition campaign” as stipulated in Article 230(7)2 of the Public Official Election Act.

4) Nonindicted 3 merely served as a delivery of money and valuables, and cannot be deemed to have received money and valuables from the Defendant.

B. Determination on the argument of the above 1)

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s promise to the Defendant to the U.S. in mobile voting through Nonindicted 3, and the Defendant was sufficiently recognized as having paid the price agreed in advance immediately after the competition. This part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted.

1) Statement of related persons to the effect that the defendant promised to pay

가) 스피치학원을 운영하며 이 사건 경선에서 피고인을 도와주었던 공소외 3은 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 “피고인이 ‘처음에는 약 50명 정도의 자원봉사자를 구해보라고 하였다. 그러나 자원봉사자들을 찾을 수 없었고, 이후 2018. 3. 25. 22시경 대구 달서구 ▶▶▶▶▶에 있는 ☆☆☆☆☆ 11층에 있는 경선사무실에서 열린, 저, 공소외 25, 공소외 24, 공소외 13, 공소외 12 등이 참석한 회의에서, ’자원봉사자는 못 구한다. 알바비가 있어야 한다‘고 하였더니, 피고인이 ’알바비를 두둑하게 챙겨줄테니 아르바이트생을 구하라. 같은 달 27.까지 아르바이트생 명단을 제출하라‘고 하였다. 그래서 저희 학원 수강생, 직원, 지인들을 구하였다’고 진술하고 있다(공소외 3에 대한 증인신문조서, 증거기록 제5934, 5935, 9611쪽 등). 이와 같은 공소외 3의 진술은 매우 구체적이고 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 다른 진술자들의 진술과도 부합하여 진술의 신빙성을 인정할 수 있다.

B) From the investigative agency to this court, Nonindicted 13, who was in charge of general affairs in the light election office, consistently sought from the investigative agency to this court, “the Defendant had a friendly list of party members through a survey of public opinion, etc. regarding mobile voting, and among them, intended to train young people to help them to vote on the spot. On or around March 25, 2018, at the light election office, various persons including Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 40, who were to be mobilized in the mobile voting office, including Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 25, and Nonindicted 24, and Nonindicted 40, who were in charge of general affairs, want to give labor cost to those who are to be mobilized in the mobile voting office, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to gather more than 6 people on the day, and there is no need for them to know that there is no need to give money to the young people on the day’s day.”

Furthermore, Non-Indicted 13 stated in the investigative agency that “The defendant himself/herself performs all of his/her work (after he/she collected sonship, he/she collected about about 25 people at the office around March 28, 2018. The defendant cited a list on his/her job and stated that he/she specifically instructed him/herself to “where he/she comes to governance.” (Evidence No. 9656 pages).

C) In addition, Nonindicted 24, which had been at the above office on March 25, 2018, testified in this court that “A person who was confirmed, would not interfere with the Defendant’s right to know the following,” and in the investigative agency, it stated that “A person who was born at the above office around March 25, 2018 at the above office: (a) Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 83, and Nonindicted 12 used a severe weather report, etc. at the above office around March 25, 2018; and (b) Nonindicted 24 stated that “A person who was aged 65 or older would be mobilized as a total number of human resources; and (c) made a statement consistent with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 13 that “the Defendant would not interfere with the Defendant’s right to know,” and (d) the Defendant stated that he was not entitled to the Defendant’s allowance on the following day, but did not present the list at the time of his voting.”

D) In addition, Nonindicted 25 and Nonindicted 40 made a statement that Nonindicted 3, 13, and Nonindicted 24 made by the Defendant to the effect that “on March 25, 2018, Nonindicted 25 and Nonindicted 40 made a statement that “on March 25, 2018, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 24 would be aware of the fact that the said Defendant

E) Nonindicted 12 testified in this court to the effect that “on March 25, 2018, there was no statement that the Defendant promised to pay.” However, the above statement made by Nonindicted 12 is inconsistent with the statement of various other related persons, and the Defendant provided his phone and cooperated with Nonindicted 3 to ensure that there was no evidence to intervene in the crime when the Defendant communicates with Nonindicted 3 after the Defendant’s crime was reported to the media as set forth in paragraph 4 below. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 12 participated in the Defendant’s crime, it is difficult to grant credibility easily in the above statement made by Nonindicted 12.

2) Statement of the persons involved in the process of determining the price

A) In an investigative agency and this court, Nonindicted 3 did not refer to the amount of the cost that the Defendant would directly pay to the U.S. personnel prior to the date of his/her mother voting. However, whether the Defendant would ask for how much when he/she mobilized the U.S. students, whether Nonindicted 13 and U.S. would have determined KRW 120,000 per capita in consideration of the time, food expenses, and car expenses that Nonindicted 13 and U.S. worked, and whether the Defendant would not be “1.20,000 won” and the Defendant stated to the effect that he/she would have known that he/she “the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she was the Defendant (the protocol of examination of the witness regarding Nonindicted 3 and the record of evidence evidence).

B) Nonindicted 13 made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant would offer an allowance, but there were many cases in which the election would take place and would have been actually paid, and that Nonindicted 11 would have asked Nonindicted 3 to receive an allowance on April 4, 2018.” Nonindicted 120,00 won stated to the effect that “the amount determined in the process of entering Nonindicted 3’s trial” (the protocol of examination of the witness against Nonindicted 13 and the record of evidence).

다) 실제로 공소외 13은 2018. 4. 4. 19:03경 공소외 3에게 ‘이 친구들 알바비 단장님(공소외 11)한테도 얘기했어요. 요즘 최저시급도 올라서 12만 원 이상 줘야 한다면서 공소외 11 단장에게 돈 줘야 한다고 말해놨어요. 그랬더니 알겠대’라는 내용의 문자를 보냈고(증거기록 제7885, 9659쪽), 이는 공소외 13, 공소외 3의 위 진술들과 부합한다.

D) In addition, Nonindicted 13 sent a text message to Nonindicted 3 on April 4, 2018, around 19:04, Nonindicted 13: (a) Nonindicted 13, a person in charge of the horse-line office, sent it to Nonindicted 3, stating that “(Nonindicted 11) was absolutely known and provided as volunteers.” In light of this, Nonindicted 11, a person in charge of the horse-line office, seems to have been able to keep the fact of offering money and valuables confidential to Nonindicted 13.

3) The details of Nonindicted 3’s request for payment of remuneration and provision of money and valuables

A) On August 7, 2018, Nonindicted 3 made a statement to the investigative agency that “A student and Nonindicted 13 requested for the payment of allowances, and Nonindicted 3 made a call to the head of Nonindicted 84 secretariat on April 10, 2018 to the head of Nonindicted 84 and made a statement that “I have the right to vote in a single-soft voting. I do not have a direct opinion to the Defendant.” However, Nonindicted 84 made a statement to Nonindicted 84 that “I would not have a talk to the Defendant,” and that Nonindicted 84 made a talk to Nonindicted 4, “after 10 minutes of communication, I would like to know whether I would come to know.”

나) 이후 공소외 3은 2018. 4. 12. 대구 동구 ▼▼▼▼▼▼ 부근에 있는 홍보관에서 공소외 4로부터 현금 696만 원을 받아 공소외 3 명의의 농협계좌에 입금한 뒤 모바일투표 도우미들에게 12만 원씩 수당을 지급하였다.

C) Meanwhile, around April 12, 2018, Non-Indicted 3 stated in the above investigation that “The phone calls from Non-Indicted 13 and the phone calls from Non-Indicted 13 to Non-Indicted 4, who accurately inform Non-Indicted 13 about how to communicate with Non-Indicted 4,” and Non-Indicted 4 sent a letter to Non-Indicted 4 as well as Non-Indicted 13. Moreover, the additional number of personnel is confirmed to have increased and immediately corrected 58 persons to Non-Indicted 13.” The Defendant and Non-Indicted 4 provided Non-Indicted 3 with a detailed list of mobilized mobile voters (Evidence No. 7887 of the evidence record, etc.) on the premise of 120,000 won per capita.

라) 공소외 3은 위 조사에서 “공소외 4가 현금 696만 원을 건네주면서 ‘후보가 돈을 바로 주는 것에 대해서 찜찜해 한다’라고 했고, 제가 ’아이들이 알바비를 못받아서 문제제기를 하면 그것이 더 큰 문제다‘고 말을 한 사실이 있다. 당시 공소외 4가 현금을 지급하면서 ’절대 통장에 입금하지 말고 꼭 직접 전달하라‘고 했었는데 제가 너무 귀찮아서 바로 길 건너편에 있는 농협은행에 가서 입금을 했다. 이 사건이 불거지고 나서 공소외 4가 저에게 절대 내가 돈을 줬다고 말을 하지 말라고 했는데, 제가 ’은행에 입금을 해서 다 알겁니다‘라고 하니까 공소외 4가 ’왜 입금을 했냐‘면서 화를 냈었다”고 진술하기도 하였다.

E) The aforementioned Nonindicted 3’s statement (Evidence No. 9613 of the Evidence Record) is very specific, and the telephone conversations between Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 84 is highly specific, and the text message is consistent with Nonindicted 3’s above statement (Evidence No. 10451 of the Evidence Record) and its credibility is recognized.

F) In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 11, etc. knew in advance that they would pay allowances to persons mobilized in mobile voting, whether they would be confidential when paying allowances to Nonindicted 3, and the plan was implemented to keep the evidence confidential.

4) The defendant attempted to destroy evidence after committing the crime

A) In an investigative agency, Nonindicted 3 broadcasted a report on the fact that the illegal public opinion polls, etc. was made during the △△△ City competition. After that, Nonindicted 3 attempted to impose liability on the Defendant by making the Defendant “on all others” by telephone. Nonindicted 4 also called Nonindicted 11 or her instructions by telephone. In addition, Nonindicted 4 found that the private teaching institute operated by Nonindicted 4 was three times, and the private teaching institute operated by Nonindicted 4 was punished by a fine, and the fine is to be issued by us. The degree of fine is the same as the student’s life, so the degree of fine is the same as the student’s life, and the Defendant was her own daily allowance is deemed to have been made and she was mixed with Nonindicted 3’s president. After January 6, 200, the Defendant would be a member of the National Assembly, and the issue of Nonindicted 11 or 11’s instructions would not be covered by the Governor 88,583.”

B) Nonindicted 3 recorded Nonindicted 3’s phone call with the Defendant that the Defendant intended to transfer his responsibility. At the time, Nonindicted 3’s major contents of the statement made by the Defendant to Nonindicted 3 are as follows (Evidence No. 6357 of the evidence record).

본문내 포함된 표 ◎ 2018. 6. 19. 피고인-공소외 3 전화 통화 ■ 피고인: 돈을 안주면 자원봉사자고, 돈 주면 선거법에 걸린다. 그러니까 이거는 돈을 안 줬다고 얘기해야 되고... 한 개라도 빼내야 된다. 용서해 돌라카고 스톱시키야 되고. 그 알바비는 절대 안줬다. 알바비 하나 준거 없다. 응? 두 명은 누가 줬는지 모르지만 우리는 전부 다 자원봉사자고 이 더끌고 가면은 이게 문제 커진다. 더 확대하지 말아도. 공소외 85(♠♠♠ 기자)한테 사정해야 됩니다. 이거. 결론은 뭐냐. 결론은 알바비를 절대 안줬는 겁니다. 그거만 안주면은 공소외 3씨는 잘못될게 하나도 없어요. 알바비 받았다고 뽀록나면 공소외 3씨가 조진다 이거에요. 공소외 85 붙들고 사정을 하이소 응 이거는 저 카이소 피고인은 안 다치고 내만 다친다. 더 이상 하지마라 캐야 돼요. 부탁합니데이. 네. 부탁드릴게요. 그리고 전화도 내한테 바로 하는 거는 위험합니다. 나도 압수수색을 당했기 때문에.. 공소외 12 전화로 하세요.. 그라고 어떤 경우도 알바비가 공소외 85가 아무리 꼬시고 주위에 아무리 꼬셔도 알바비는 준 거 하나도 없다. 이 사건의 킵니다. 부탁드릴게요.

According to the above defendant's statement, it seems that the defendant directly provided the defendant with the payment of the consideration, and that he used it to say that he did not pay the consideration to the reporter.

C) Meanwhile, according to the record of telephone conversations between Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4 on June 20, 2018, it appears that Nonindicted 3 asked Nonindicted 3 to Nonindicted 3 that the Defendant covered the Defendant’s entire crime of covering the Defendant’s mobile voting helpers, and Nonindicted 4 would not be a problem if the Defendant was a volunteer, and that Nonindicted 4 asked Nonindicted 3 to the effect that he would not make the person who attempted to cast a mobile vote would not pay the price.

본문내 포함된 표 ◎ 2018. 6. 20. 공소외 3-공소외 4 전화 통화 ■ 공소외 3: 인제 막 무서운 거에요. 문제가 됐는데 이야 이거 완전 저한테 다 뒤집어 씌워버리시고 그러면. 너무 일이 이제 막 크게 느껴지는 거에요. 아니 어제 그 말씀하실 때 완전히 그러면 완전 뭐 저보고 다.. ■ 공소외 4: 그 알바애들은 나름 인제 우리 쪽에서 알아보니까. 그냥 뭐 그 어른 모르는 사람들 이래가지고 자원봉사개념으로 갔기 때문에 큰 그게 문제가 안된대요. (중략) ■ 공소외 3: 저랑 위원장님(피고인) 둘만의 통환데 저한테 무슨 확답 받듯이. 제가 안 시켰잖아요. 공소외 3원장이 했잖아. 그렇게 말씀하시는 건 좀 아니지 않나라는 생각이 들면서 찝찝한 거에요. 제가. 왜 그렇게 말씀하시지? 정말로 자기가 다 시켰는데 근데 내가 이거 지금 증거가 없을 뿐인데 이야 그걸 어떻게 저렇게 말씀하시지? ■ 공소외 4: 그거 학생들을 좀 불러 해달라칸 이거는 시켜도 문제가 될 거 하나도 없어요. 시켜도. ■ 공소외 3: 근데 이렇게까지 말씀하시면서 저한테 다짐받듯이 하실 이유가 뭐가 있노라는 생각이 지금 드는 거에요. (중략) ■ 공소외 4: 그 뭐 통화하다가 그런 섭섭한 거는 잊어버리고 일단은 뭐 문제없도록 잘 경영해 나갑시다. 그 또 그래 있으면 전화주세요. ■ 공소외 3: 네. 또 전화드릴게요 ■ 공소외 4: 돈 이야기는 뭐 절대 네, 네, 네.

D) In addition, around August 20, 2018, Nonindicted 3 received a request from Nonindicted 4 to affix a seal on the confirmation document stating that “ Nonindicted 3 paid the price for the advance voting in the form of Nonindicted 3’s money,” and affixed the seal at the request, and immediately immediately attended the police, stated the fact, and received an investigation (Evidence Record No. 10458).

5) The source of money provided by Nonindicted 4

The Defendant asserts that the funds provided by Nonindicted 4 are those provided by Nonindicted 4 from Nonindicted 23, and that they are not related to the Defendant.

A) In the prosecution investigation of Nonindicted 4 and 5, Nonindicted 4 paid Nonindicted 3 the cash that the Defendant had in favor of Nonindicted 3 with the Defendant’s first priority in raising and returning the cash that he had in favor of Nonindicted 4’s president. The Defendant paid to the Defendant money to Nonindicted 23, a separate relative with the Defendant, and he received money to Nonindicted 23. On April 12, 2018, Nonindicted 23, a person who was seated at Nonindicted 3’s office shock, sent the money to Nonindicted 23’s office. Nonindicted 23, who was given the money first to Nonindicted 3, sent the money to Nonindicted 3’s office. Nonindicted 23, who was given the money to Nonindicted 4’s office shock, was 7 million won or more, which was 7 million won or more, and the Defendant and Nonindicted 392, which made a specific statement regarding the difference between the Defendant and Nonindicted 3916.396 million won (Evidence evidence).

The above statements made by Nonindicted 4 are consistent with the contents of the currency between the Defendant, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 23, and the transmission record of text messages and the order of time, and the credibility of the above statements made by Nonindicted 4 is fully recognized.

B) In addition, Nonindicted 4, in this court and a written statement directly prepared by him, stated that “The Defendant lent and borrowed money from Nonindicted 23.” On September 12, 2018, the Defendant’s defense counsel was found and the Defendant stated that Nonindicted 23 lent Nonindicted 4 et al. al., and Nonindicted 23 stated that the Defendant lent Nonindicted 4 et al. Non-Indicted 4. Nonindicted 4 borrowed money. Nonindicted 4 stated that “I do not know it,” and that Nonindicted 4 stated that he would do so (a) he borrowed money from Nonindicted 4.

C) In light of the above Nonindicted 4’s statement, the fact that Nonindicted 4 did not seem to have any special reason to borrow money from Nonindicted 23, and the relationship between Nonindicted 23 and the Defendant and Nonindicted 4, it appears that the Defendant appears to have lent money from Nonindicted 23 to Nonindicted 4, and it is reasonable to view that the money and valuables provided to Nonindicted 3 are the money that the Defendant bears. The Defendant’s assertion also is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion of the above 2)

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, it is difficult to view that the mobile voting guidance of the instant case cannot be deemed as pure guidance without the purpose of winning the Defendant in the instant competition, and this constitutes a “scambling campaign.”

1) According to the statement of the U.S. Does who were posted to the site on the mobile voting day, including Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 86, Nonindicted 47, and Nonindicted 87, all the responsible party members who have attempted to cast their votes at the site stated to the effect that they were all the persons supporting the Defendant.

2) 공소외 3, 공소외 24, 공소외 50, 공소외 27, 공소외 13, 공소외 15 등의 진술에 의하면, 피고인은 모바일투표로 인한 득표수 집계를 위하여, 피고인을 지지하는 책임당원들에게 모바일투표 방법을 안내한 후 피고인에게 투표하였다는 인증샷을 찍어 전송하라고 지시하였던 것으로 보인다(각 증인신문조서, 증거기록 제8851, 8961, 9104쪽 등). 실제로 공소외 11은 모바일투표일 책임당원들이 피고인에게 투표한 캡쳐 사진을 전송받아 이를 취합하기도 하였다(증거기록 제10034쪽 이하).

3) The Defendant managed the list of the members responsible for supporting himself, and planned activities to improve the Defendant’s mobile voting rate by guiding them on the day of mobile voting. On the day of mobile voting, the Defendant provided a direct education on the roles to be directly conducted at the office to helpers who are gathered in the office.

D. Determination as to the argument

1) Article 230(7)2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that "any person who offers, expresses an intention to offer, or promises to offer money, goods, entertainment, other property benefits, or public or private positions to any competitor, any person related to the competition campaign, any competition elector, any competition elector, or any witness for the purpose of getting him/her to be elected or not to be elected as a candidate or having any competition elector (referring to the person who is listed on the roll of electors for the intra-party competition) vote for him/her or not to vote for him/her shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won." The term "persons related to the competition campaign" in this context should be interpreted as widely referring to the persons who are engaged in the intra-party competition campaign or who are directly involved in the procedures for the intra-party competition and persons related to the competition campaign, and any person related to the competition campaign in cases where any person offers money and goods, etc. to assist in the election of any specific candidate is also interpreted as included in the competition campaign.

2) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 3 constitutes a person related to the competition campaign as provided in Article 230(7)2 of the Public Official Election Act, in addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by this court as follows: (a) upon request of the Defendant, Nonindicted 3 recruited members of the responsible party supporting the Defendant to guide the method of voting on the day of mobile voting; (b) thereby, Nonindicted 3 solicited the Defendant to improve the Defendant’s mobile voting earnings; (c) the number of persons directly or indirectly recruited by Nonindicted 3 is about 2 to 30; and (d) Nonindicted 3 served as a person related to the competition campaign as provided in Article 230(7)2 of the Public Official Election Act.

3) We do not accept this part of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

E. Determination as to the argument

Article 230(7)2 of the Public Official Election Act provides that "any person who offers, expresses his/her intention to offer, or promises to offer money, goods, entertainment, property interest, or public or private post to any competitor, any person involved in the competition campaign, any competition elector, any competition elector, or any witness for the purpose of causing him/her to be elected or not elected as a candidate in connection with the intra-party competition, or causing any competition elector to vote for him/her or preventing any competition elector from voting for any other person.

Here, “providing goods or services” is merely merely the meaning of “providing goods or services to the other party.” It is difficult to see that the meaning of “providing goods or services” as alleged by the Defendant’s defense counsel is difficult to view that the Defendant would necessarily enjoy economic benefits, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act of offering “providing” is constituted regardless of whether Nonindicted 3 finally acquired the goods or Nonindicted 3, etc., and whether Nonindicted 3, etc. offered the goods or services to the other party. Furthermore, in addition, considering that the Defendant received the list of the Does prepared by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 13, and then paid 120,000 won per person in accordance with the number of persons of the Doeses, and whether Nonindicted 3 actually paid daily allowances to each Does, it is reasonable to specify that the other party who provided the Defendant’s allowances is Nonindicted 3.

We cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

7. Judgment on the crime No. 7

A. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

As stated in the facts charged in the judgment, part of the money paid as allowances to election campaign workers was returned, and the fact that the sum of KRW 3,290,000 was provided as compensation for election campaign to Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 32 is recognized. However, there is no fact that the Defendant gave such instructions to Nonindicted 29).

B. Specific determination

이 법원이 적법하게 채택, 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 공소외 29는 “피고인이 2018. 3. 11. 20시~22시경 선거사무실에 와서 저에게 ‘내일 선거사무원 수당을 지급하라. 공소외 28, 공소외 27은 순전히 자원봉사자로 왔지만 선거운동을 시키기 위하여 등록을 한 것이니까 수당 중에 100만 원만 주고 나머지는 되돌려 받아서 자원봉사자인 공소외 26에게 100만 원, 나머지는 공소외 32에게 줘라’고 지시하였고, 지시에 따라 그대로 하였다. 2018. 4. 15.에도 피고인에게 전화를 걸어 ‘수당 처리를 전 달과 같이 처리하면 되겠습니까’라고 물었더니 피고인이 ‘그렇게 해라’고 하여 같은 방법으로 처리하였다”고 진술(증거기록 제12790, 12791쪽)하고 있는 점, ② 또한 공소외 29는 “피고인이 수당 중 일부를 돌려 받으라고 저에게 지시를 할 때, 제가 ‘이렇게 하시면 안됩니다’라고 하였으나 피고인이 ‘괜찮다. 내가 다 얘기를 해놨다’고 했고, 피고인이 이 부분에 관하여 지시를 하지 않았다는 주장에 대하여는, ‘분명히 피고인이 지시를 했기 때문에 제가 불법인줄 알면서도 지시에 따랐던 것’이라고 명백하게 진술하고 있는 점(증거기록 제15931쪽), ③ 또한 공소외 29는 피고인이 2006년 △△▲구청장 후보로 출마하였을 때 선거캠프에서 회계업무를 담당한 것을 비롯하여 2014년까지 구청장인 피고인의 비서로 근무하였고, 이 사건 제7회 지방선거 △△시장 경선에서도 회계책임자로 근무하였는데, 이전의 구청장, △△시장 경선 등 여러 차례에 걸친 선거에서는 이 사건과 같이 선거기간 중에 수당 지급 처리를 하고 그 중 일부를 돌려받아 자원봉사자에게 지급한 경우가 없었다는 취지로 진술하고 있는 점(증거기록 제15934쪽), ④ 공소외 28도 ”선거사무원으로 등록할 당시 공소외 29가 저에게 ‘돈이 나오면 반씩 나눠야 된다’고 얘기를 했고, 이후 피고인이 저를 따로 불러 ‘돈이 나오면 반씩 나눠야 되지 않겠나‘라고 했다“고 진술하고 있는 점(증거기록 제15844쪽), ⑤ 피고인은 회계책임자인 공소외 29의 수당 지급에 관한 회계 처리보고를 직접 받아 이러한 사실을 충분히 인식하고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인은 공소외 28, 공소외 27에게 지급된 선거사무원 수당 중 일부를 공소외 26, 공소외 32에게 선거운동 대가로 제공하도록 구체적으로 지시한 사실이 인정된다.

We cannot accept this part of the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) A primary crime (a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to purchase and inducement for understanding);

[Determination of Types] Purchasing and inducing understanding of elections; Two Types (General Purchasing)

[Special Persons] A planned and organized crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation (10 months to 2 months)

(b) Second offense (violation of the Public Official Election Act following the purchase of competition-related issues);

[Determination of Types] Purchasing and inducing understandings; Type 1 (Purchase related to Multi-Party Competition)

[Special Aggravation] Advanced and Organizational Crimes

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation (8 to 2 years)

(c) A third-party crime (violation of the Public Official Election Act due to Violation of methods of holding the intra-party competition);

[Determination of Punishment] Violation of Types 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign) for Election Campaign Period and Illegal Election Campaign

[Special Aggravation] Advanced and Organizational Crimes

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation (4 months to one year)

(d) Scope of the final recommending punishment due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months (not less than 14 weeks for which the sentencing guidelines have not been set) and the concurrent offenses for which the sentencing guidelines have been set out in the former part of Article 37 of each Criminal Act; therefore, only the lower limit of the recommended punishment according to the above sentencing guidelines

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months;

In order to ensure fair elections by free will of the people and democratic procedures, the Public Official Election Act strictly prohibits various illegal acts and acceptance of money and valuables related to illegal election campaigns or public opinion polls, and strictly punishs violations.

The Defendant, as a candidate for the ○○○○○○○ Party △△ Party △△△ Group, which reflects 50% of the responsible mobile voting and 50% of the general citizen public opinion poll, directed and solicits public opinion poll answers in a systematic manner through large-scale general telephone call transition measures, and attempted to distort △△△ citizens’ opinion poll results reflected in the competition by conducting so-called “tel” using a large phone phone against the responsible party members to conduct an illegal public opinion poll. Furthermore, the Defendant established a similar election campaign office, and ordered SNS team members to classify the responsible party members supporting the Defendant, and performed public relations activities claiming support for the Defendant using the telephone, and the Defendant ○○○○○ Party △△△△△△ Party △△△△△△△△△ Party aiming to systematically attract more than 50 mobile voters to put them into the scene on the day of mobile voting, and paid a part of the price for the election campaign workers paid to the Defendant in fact in the process of being returned to the volunteers.

The above crime committed by the Defendant is a serious election crime that seriously undermines the purpose of legislation of the Public Official Election Act, in order to properly reflect the intention of the voters in the election for public office without distortion. In addition, in view of the characteristics of △△ region where the candidate for the ○○○○○○○ Party appears to have been demoted in the election for public office, the crime of this case relating to the ○○○○ Party’s primary election for public office is a very bad crime. Moreover, the crime of this case, which is related to the ○○○ Party’s primary election for public office, is not against the punishment of such crime.

In particular, in order to distort the results of △△△ citizens’ public opinion polls reflected in the intra-party competition, the Defendant: (a) abused 73 persons, including pro-Japaneses and sons, wishing to get official ceiling from the Defendant; and (b) instructed and recommended an illegal general telephone call call call in a large or non-discriminatory manner; and (c) up to 1,147 wired telephones subscribed to with Defendant’s instructions or recommendations. If the actual public opinion poll for the △△△△○○○○ Party’s △△ Party’s △△△△ Party’s △△△ Party’s △△ Party’s △△ Party’s △△ Party’s △△ Party’s △△ Party’s △ Party’s △△ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s △ Party’s voluntary activities as a foundation of a political party, which is more likely to engage in an election campaign.

○ The instant crime was committed in a planned and organized manner, and in that it is a crime that leads to the authority of the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission, there is a high possibility that similar recidivism will occur in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish the instant crime for the general preventive effect of the punishment, such as the prevention of recidivism.

After a press report that an illegal public opinion polls is being conducted in the course of the competition of the ○○○○○ City △△△ Party, the Defendant contacted Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 2, etc. to grasp the contents of the statement made by the investigative agency, and attempted to end up the Defendant’s statement made by the investigative agency. Nonindicted 3 asked Nonindicted 3 to request the reporter to raise the case any longer by contact with the reporter. Since such crime, the possibility of criticism is very high.

○ Furthermore, even though the Defendant had already been convicted by many people in relation to the crime under his own initiative, the Defendant denies most of the facts charged in this court.

While recognizing a part of the facts charged as a substitute for the establishment of a crime, it is not directly directed by the person himself, but only passively neglecting the crimes committed by the competition campaignr, and only reduces and abolish some facts. Considering these points, it cannot be deemed that the defendant is seriously against his own crime.

○ The Defendant committed various forms of illegal election campaigns in a systematic and planned manner by inviting or ordering their relatives, relatives, and persons under his influence, and many people under the Defendant’s instruction were punished as an election criminal. As such, due to a large-scale illegal election campaign for which no example is found, local communities were considerably shocked. In addition, in light of the content and possibility of criticism of the instant crime, the role of the Defendant, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, etc., as seen earlier, the Defendant should be subject to strict punishment against the Defendant.

However, notwithstanding the crime of this case, some of the sentencing should be taken into consideration in sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant was dismissed from the light line, and that there is no record that the defendant committed a crime exceeding the fine.

Upon full consideration of the above circumstances, a sentence shall be pronounced as ordered.

Judge Sho-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) In the appellate trial, the prosecutor reversed the judgment of the court of first instance with the purport of excluding the portion not guilty in the facts charged, and sentenced the guilty portion in the first instance trial as it is, and sentenced that the sentencing is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance.

Note 2) As set forth in Note 1.

Note 3) As set forth in Note 1.

4) Article 108(11)2 of the Public Official Election Act prohibits the same person from responding to, or instructing, soliciting, or inducing, two or more telephone numbers by taking measures, such as call forwarding, in order to influence the result of the public opinion poll on election.

5) Under Article 108(5) of the Public Official Election Act, where a “public opinion poll on election” is conducted, an applicant shall indicate the name and telephone number of the institution or organization conducting the public opinion poll before asking questions to those to be polled, select those to be polled capable of representing the whole strata of the relevant subject matter of poll, and make inquiries to a specific political party or candidate by using the words or sentences that are biased to the specific political party or candidate (Article 108(5)1 of the Public Official Election Act, and prohibit them.

주6) 게다가 범죄사실 제3항의 일반전화 착신전환과 관련된 이 사건 여론조사가 공직선거와는 무관하게 오로지 당내경선에만 관련되거나 당내경선만을 위한 것인지는 증거기록상 분명하지 않다. 오히려 증거에 의하면, 이 사건 여론조사는 ○○○○당 후보 적합도를 묻는 질문 외에도 ■■■■■당과의 양자대결 구도를 전제로 한 질문 등도 포함되어 있어 당내경선 뿐만 아니라 공직선거에 관한 여론조사의 성격도 일부 가지고 있는 것으로 보인다. 다만, 아래에서는 이 사건 여론조사가 당내경선과 관련된 여론조사라는 전제 하에 법 적용 여부에 관한 피고인 측 주장에 관하여 법리적 판단을 하기로 한다.

7) Article 89 (Prohibition of Establishment of Similar Organizations) (1) of the Public Official Election Act (Prohibition of Establishment of Similar Organizations) No person may newly establish or establish an election promotion committee, supporters’ association, research institute, counseling center or resting place, or similar institution, organization, organization, or facility on behalf of a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate, other than an election campaign office, election campaign liaison office, and election countermeasure organization under Article 61(1) and (2).

8) From the date of the enactment of March 16, 1994, the Public Official Election Act stipulated that “the election commission, election campaign liaison office, election campaign liaison office, or election campaign countermeasure organization, may not establish or install any similar institution, organization, or facility on behalf of any candidate other than election campaign committee, supporters’ association, or resting area, regardless of the name thereof.”

9) It is also confirmed that the current status of classifying the responsible party members according to the extent of support and opposition by the Defendant was organized into the etept in the instant office and that it was delivered to Nonindicted 27 of the executing team members (Evidence Nos. 14155).

Note 10) The Defendant did not dispute the issue of whether he was guilty of this part of the crime, and argued that he was not actively instructed, and that he was only passively resisted. This is to decide whether the Defendant was guilty of the act of the Defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged, and whether the Defendant had made such instruction or request.

11) The Defendant, on the basis of the degree of support and opposition to, and support for, the Defendant, as well as the responsible party members, managed the list as A1 [a list of the responsible party members at the time of the presidential election of the candidate for the ○○○○○○○ Party (A), A2 (a list of party members managed by those who supported the Defendant as responsible party members), A3 (a list of party members managed by those who want to help the Defendant), B1 (a list of those who started their politics from the commencement of their politics from among those who are not the responsible party members), and B2 (a list of those who are not the responsible party members).

Note 12) Nonindicted 27 appears to have sent the relevant writing to Nonindicted 41 (Evidence Records No. 14142).

Note 13) The Defendant asserts that he did not give explicit instructions while recognizing this part of the facts charged. This is to determine whether the Defendant’s instruction is related to the mode of committing a crime committed by the Defendant constituting the facts charged as follows.

14) Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to instruction and solicitation for change of call for general telephone, violation of the Public Official Election Act due to violation of methods of public opinion poll, etc.