Attorney DG

1. On the part of the violation of the Political Funds Act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the violation of the Political Funds Act, by recognizing that the Defendant leased the election funds of KRW 248 million from B without compensation, and received political funds equivalent to the financial gains, by means of which are not provided for in the Political Funds Act, and determined that the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act is in a commercial concurrent relationship with the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the Restriction on Contribution Act or the purchase by electors, and that the statute of limitations for the said violation of the Public Official Election Act with more severe punishment

Of the grounds of appeal, the assertion disputing the determination of the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of free judgment on the evidence selection and probative value of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the concept of free loans, the nature of political funds, the number of crimes against the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the Political Funds Act, and the statute of limitations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

- The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

2. As to the non-fixed part

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s accusation constituted a false fact for the purpose of criminal punishment B.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the determination of the lower court is merely an error of free evaluation of evidence and probative value by the lower court, which is a fact-finding court.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, although the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion that found the Defendant guilty is justifiable, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of false accusation or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Min Min-young

Justices Lee In-bok and Lee Dong-won