[2] The case holding that Article 36 of the Political Funds Act applies even if the political funds that had already occurred prior to the reporting on the person in charge of accounting and the deposit account of the political funds pursuant to Article 34 of the Political Funds Act

1. Article 34 of the Political Funds Act provides that a candidate and a preliminary candidate for an election for public office (referring to the case where a person in charge of accounting of an election campaign office and an election campaign liaison office are elected) shall appoint one person in charge of receipt and disbursement of political funds from among those eligible to carry out an election campaign for public office without delay and report such appointment in writing to the competent election commission (paragraph (1)) and a person in charge of accounting shall attach a deposit account for receipt and disbursement of political funds (paragraph (4)). Article 36 provides that only the receipt and disbursement of political funds of a candidate and a preliminary candidate for an election for public office (referring to a person in charge of accounting of the election campaign office and the election campaign liaison office, in the case of a candidate and a preliminary candidate for an election for public office) may be carried out ( Paragraph (1)); Article 34 (4) provides that where a person in charge of accounting receives and disburses political funds, he/she shall use the deposit account that is reported to the competent election commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 34 (2).

Unlike this, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that Article 36 of the Political Funds Act does not apply to political funds that have already occurred before a person in charge of accounting and a deposit account of political funds is reported pursuant to Article 34 of the Political Funds Act.

2. The court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that found all of the charges of this case guilty on the ground that the defendant's total amount of KRW 14 million paid to the non-indicteds in the 4th nationwide local election of Dong-dong local government, which was implemented on May 31, 2006, was paid for political consulting, etc. with respect to the election of the head of Songpa-gu Office in relation to the election and the recruitment of candidates for the head of Songpa-gu Seoul office of Songpa-gu Office in the 4th regional election of Dong-dong local government, which was implemented on May 31, 2006, and even if not, it constitutes election expenses, it constitutes political funds as provided in the Political Funds Act because expenses incurred by the defendant's political activities, who is a preliminary candidate, constitute political funds as provided in the Political Funds Act. Review of the relevant legal principles and records, it is proper

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)