Cheating, Violation of the Political Funds Act

Law Firm Jeongn, Attorney Kim Yong-pung, Justice Kim Yong-pil, and Justice Jeong Jong-kin

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years and by a fine of 160,000,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 500,000 into one day.

692,00,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

The prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery): Both appeals;

A) Reasons for appeal by the prosecutor on the amount of protein that the defendant received

The Defendant was given attention to KRW 100 million as well as to pay 50,000 from J.

B) Defendant’s appeal as to whether money and valuables received by the Defendant constitute a bribe

(1) The J did not provide the Defendant with money in return for the resolution of the civil petition related to the G institution, but paid support money by threat of M intended to raise support money, and only paid support money by a temporary and flexible expectation that if he stores personal friendship with a member of the National Assembly, he will receive support in the future.

(2) Even if M demanded money and valuables to J in return for the settlement of civil petitions, the Defendant received money and valuables from the J without contact with M and will contact as political funds. In addition, the Defendant recognized that he/she resolved a legitimate civil petition. On May 10, 2015, the Mannam of the J does not have been interested and agreed in advance, i.e., for four months, and that he/she would receive money and valuables for 50,000s following the following day. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant was merely considered as a political support and did not have any awareness that he/she would receive money and valuables in return for the settlement of civil petitions.

2) Improper action after acceptance of the bribe: Defendant’s appeal

A) At the time when the Defendant received KRW 20 million from J, 20,000 from J, there was no talk about the subcontracted construction work at the time. Even if he requested the subcontracting work and told the Defendant to assist in solving civil petitions, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the Defendant offered the relevant phone call to the head of the H agency Construction Headquarters W in the period of one year and four months thereafter, and the J also provided the political support fund (election fund) for the purpose of political support.

B) The civil petition petition resolution work for a member of the National Assembly is one of the important duties performed by a member of the National Assembly, and it does not constitute a general and legitimate performance of duties of a member of the National Assembly, but does not violate the duties of a member of the National Assembly.

3) Violation of the Political Funds Act relating to Z: Defendant’s appeal

A) On March 20, 2014, the Defendant received not only KRW 10 million but also KRW 5 million, as indicated in the facts charged as indicated in the list of crimes No. 4 on March 20, 2014. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant received not only KRW 20 million but also KRW 5 million as indicated in the facts charged as indicated in the list of crimes No. 5, and did not receive KRW 20 million from May 2014, as indicated in the facts charged as indicated in the list No. 7 of crimes.

B) M received KRW 500 million from the Z without the Defendant’s prior instruction or approval, and left the Defendant’s car for the purpose of transmitting it to BY. The Defendant, who became aware of this fact later, called M, called “BY” and called “BY” and called “BY” and called “BY” to return money to M. M were given positive answers from BY, and it continued to return it to the central public opinion poll. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received KRW 500 million from Z. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant received KRW 500 million from Z.

C) Money and valuables received from the Z are not received in relation to the airspace.

(1) At the time when the Defendant received money and valuables as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 3, 4, and 5 from the Z, the Z did not request the Defendant to do so. Therefore, the said money is not an official contribution but a simple political fund.

(2) On April 30, 2014, the AA market official authority was transferred from the Committee for Recommendation of Candidates for the Gyeonggi-do Party to the Central Gongcheon Management Committee, and Ma prepared KRW 500 million under the pretext that they should make a street to actual tax revenues, such as BY, and both before and after the transfer of the official authority had absolute influence on BY, and the Defendant was not in the position to exercise the influence over the official authority, and the Defendant was not in the actual exercise of the influence. Accordingly, the 500 million won which was provided is not received in relation to the official authority.

(3) It cannot be deemed that the sum of KRW 20 million issued to the Defendant on May 201, after the Z died from the airspace in the airspace in 2014, was received in relation to the airspace.

4) Violation of Political Funds Act relating to AI: Both appeals.

A) Reasons for appeal by the defendant

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges concerning the portion of KRW 45 million out of the total amount of KRW 250 million stated in the facts charged that the AI, the donor, and the M’s statement that see it and issued, and found the Defendant guilty of the portion of providing political support worth KRW 195 million. However, the entries in the Mbook are not made from time to time for recording, and the entries in the CA, CH, etc., which are not entirely related to support funds provided to the Defendant, are not believed, and it is nothing more than a statement consistent with the contents written in the Mbook without credibility, and the AI is merely a statement made in accordance with the contents written in the Mbook. In addition, there is sufficient probability that the political support that the M was received from the AI is not delivered in full to the Defendant and the delivery accident occurred.

B) Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (the total of KRW 35 million, not guilty, No. 8 of the List of Offenses and KRW 13,15, and 18 of the List of Offenses)

In light of the fact that both illegal political fund providers recorded in the pocket book prepared by M recognize the fact of granting, and M voluntarily submits the pocket book to the prosecution, the credibility of the pocket book is high, and considering the relationship between the defendant and the AI, it is not easy for M, who is an assistant of the defendant, to deduct it in the process of delivering political funds provided by AI, to use it individually. The judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous in

5) Violation of the Political Funds Act relating to AC: Both appeals.

A) Reasons for appeal by the defendant

(1) As indicated in the list of crimes No. 20, the Defendant did not receive AC from AF Hotel on April 20, 2014, and did not receive KRW 50 million from AF Hotel.

(2) As indicated in the list of crimes No. 19, the Defendant received KRW 20 million from AC, as indicated in the list of crimes. However, in light of the fact that at the time, the public authority over AD Si Council members was the chairperson of AD City, it is not the public-private partnership but the political support fund.

(3) As indicated in the list of crimes No. 22, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from AC in the second half of 2014, and was not paid as political funds.

B) Grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor

(1) The lower court denied the admissibility of the protocol of examination of the suspect to be prepared by the public prosecutor against AC on the ground that AC refused testimony in court because it concerns the possibility of criminal prosecution of the principal, but it is admissible as long as AC appears in court and recognized the formation of the petition.

(2) According to the AC’s statement, M’s pocket book content, and M’s statement, the facts charged as to the total sum 21 of the crime sight table should be found guilty.

6) The violation of the AP-related Political Funds Act: the Defendant’s appeal was paid KRW 70 million, which the Defendant received from AP around 2015, as indicated in the list of crimes No. 24 of the list of crimes, and was not received as political support payments.

7) Violation of the Political Funds Act relating to A Q: Both appeals.

A) Reasons for appeal by the defendant

The Defendant did not receive KRW 10 million as indicated in A Q Q’s list of crimes No. 28.

B) Reasons for appeal by the Prosecutor on the list 26,27 of crime sights

(1) Regarding the list 26 of the crime day list, the use of a passenger car by the Defendant’s wife Q is related to the Defendant’s political activities, and the purchase cost shall be deemed to be the fund required for the Defendant’s political activities.

(2) With regard to No. 27 of the Crime List 27, if M sent a delivery accident to KRW 10 million out of the purchase cost of the vehicle, M bears credibility in M’s statement that it delivered KRW 10 million on the ground that M did not have any reason to make a statement that does not have any content in the pocket book.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment (a fine of seven years of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 160 million, and a penalty of KRW 682 million) declared by the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) regarding

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

On May 2015, the Defendant received from J an amount equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 from Q hotel in relation to ‘K Corporation ordered by J as well as M at the first floor coffee shop in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

2) Amount of pathology received by the defendant: The prosecutor's appeal part

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the Defendant consistently testified from the second statement of the prosecution to the court of the court below at around May 2015 that the erogens received from J was equivalent to 50,000,000 won; (b) the court below acknowledged that the Defendant’s use of the erogens equivalent to KRW 100,000,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000 as well as the remaining erogens received from J from the court of the court of the court below; and (c) the court below recognized that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s payment was equivalent to KRW 5,50,000,000,000 to KRW 510,00,000,00 as evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s money received from the J was in excess of KRW 50,000,000,000. The Prosecutor’s allegation of mistake in this part of the facts is without merit (in the case of offering of a bribe against the witnessJ, the amount of the bribe issued by the J is more than KRW 50,60,000 and more than KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

3) Whether the money received by the defendant constitutes a bribe: The part on the defendant's appeal

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, based on the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated after explaining the legal principles on the criteria for determining whether the duty relationship and the benefits acquired by a public official are a bribe in the crime of bribery, determined that the amount equivalent to 50,000 won received by the Defendant in return for the duty of a member of the National Assembly constitutes a bribe, and that at the time of receiving the said money and valuables, the Defendant was aware of the payment.

(1) From June 2014, the Defendant served as a member of the National Assembly D’s member, and the G agency constitutes a competent agency of D.

(2) On January 6, 2015, J, the representative of the limited partnership I (hereinafter referred to as "I") engaging in the electrical construction business, was selected as the final successful bidder of the KG (10,307,64,00 won of the estimated construction cost, November 4, 2014, and KRW 10,307,64,00 of the estimated construction cost). However, in the case of a competition company participating in the bidding, G, upon raising an objection to the effect that the status of possession of the I’s electrical engineer selected as a successful bidder in the KGL, would be false, it suspended the conclusion of the contract with the EU around January 14, 2015. Accordingly, J sought the will of a member of the National Assembly D affiliated with the National Assembly, and requested M M to promptly enter into a construction contract with the G agency after being first aware of the Defendant’s assistant M on January 1, 2015.

(3) M calls to the Director General of G agency contract and filed a civil petition from the competitor. It is unreasonable that M does not conclude a contract with the competitor solely for the reason that it is unfair. The head of BV, who is a working employee of G agency, and the director of AK, directly found the case in the Defendant’s Council room around January 21, 2015, and explained the case to M.

(4) On January 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received the I’s G agency’s civil petition from M; (b) called “the G agency’s phone call to the 0 president of the G agency; and (c) called “whether it is wrong for the G agency to temporarily withhold the conclusion of a contract with the company selected as a successful tenderer; and (d) it is not erroneous for the G agency to conclude a contract as soon as possible.” (c) At the lower court’s court, the Defendant stated to the effect that the present member of the National Assembly delivered a civil petition related to the conclusion of a contract by a specific company, not a civil petition related to a local constituency,

(5) 0 immediately ordered the head of the G institution’s management support office P to conclude a contract with the Defendant at the request of the Defendant, and the G institution concluded a contract with I around January 29, 2015 with the said K corporation.

(6) After that, M demanded that J well be resolved, and that M should not be 100 million won of personnel, and the Defendant, around May 2015, issued 50 million U.S. pay attention to the virtue of Q hotel 1st century as well as the fact that the contract for construction was concluded and audited with J. In addition, the Defendant received a delivery of 50,000 U.S. dollars as a consideration for the conclusion of the contract, along with the personnel of Q hotel 1st century.

(7) Around May 2015, when a contract was entered into between G institution and I and it was about four months after the conclusion of the contract between G institution and I, the Defendant paid money to the Defendant. The reason why M continued to demand KRW 100 million for the settlement of the case of G institution, however, it is assumed that M did not receive a large amount of money, and that M did not refuse M’s request any longer, and that M’s request was paid to the Defendant with a considerable amount of 50,000 U.S. dollars since it could no longer be rejected. The Defendant’s envelope containing eromaticization was a bag that the construction contract was well made on the part of the Defendant, and that the contract was made on the part of the Defendant, as a matter of course, and that the Defendant had not been able to receive a large amount of money due to bad erosion.g., the Defendant and the prosecutor’s office did not know that there was no specific reason in the form of “G institution” (Evidence No. 1878, No. 1879, Mar. 18, 1878, etc.).

(9) Considering the fact that the Defendant’s 50,00 Won (based on average trading rate of KRW 1,222.18, 200 on May 5, 2015) received from the J belongs to a significant amount, and that it is not easy to easily understand that the Defendant would be paid a large amount of money under the pretext of simple support without any particular reason that the J first met on the date, the Defendant’s payment of money under the pretext of support is difficult. The Defendant’s contents of the Defendant’s G institution’s call with the president, the contract details between the I and G institution that the J intended to resolve through the Defendant, the process of concluding contracts after the Defendant’s intervention, the relationship between the Defendant and the J, and the amount of money received, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant recognized the said money received from the J as a bribe not as a general support but as a consideration for the Defendant’s participation in the resolution of a civil petition related to the G institution’

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

(1) Relevant legal principles

The act of contribution of political funds is an act of financial support for political activities and a bribe is a separate concept as unlawful consideration for a public official’s performance of duties. Even though money and valuables are given and received under the pretext of political funds and taken the procedures prescribed by the Political Funds Act, it is recognized that a bribe has the substance of consideration for a public official’s performance of duties by expectation of an act favorable to a person providing money and valuables or providing money and valuables as a case thereof in connection with a specific performance of duties by a political person who is a public official, rather than a political person’s overall political activity. In such cases, when determining the bribe of offering money and valuables, the position and authority of the other party, whether a money and valuables provider and the other party have made a fair contribution, the timing and amount of contribution, the amount of money and valuables provided, the motive and circumstances of offering money and valuables, etc. shall be comprehensively considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8568, Jun. 12, 2008; 2016Do21536, Mar. 22, 2017).

Meanwhile, in a case where money and valuables requested or promised by a public official are indivisiblely combined with the nature as consideration for an act other than one’s duty and as a case for an act other than one’s duty, the entire money and valuables demanded or promised to receive are in the nature of as consideration for an act of duties indivisible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3039, Jul. 9, 2009). In addition, even if money and valuables are received under the pretext of a political person’s election fund, etc.

As long as the substance of the consideration for his/her duties is as a bribe, it does not lose the character as a bribe, and even if the pure political fund nature among the money and valuables received is partly included, it does not interfere with deeming it as a bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12642, Jan. 12, 2012).

(2) In addition to the circumstances presented by the court below, considering the following circumstances recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and related legal principles, it is justifiable for the court below to acknowledge that 50,000 won received from JO was a bribe and that there was no awareness of the defendant's quid pro quo. This part of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit. While the court did not know at all, the defendant and M was not aware, to resolve the problem of the construction contract related to G institution, the defendant was provided with money equivalent to 50,000 won as an assistant to the defendant. Furthermore, the money and valuables provided by J was provided to the defendant without following the procedure provided by the Political Fund Act. In addition, as stated by the court below, the court below emphasized that the construction contract between the defendant and M at hotel stores or that the defendant was able to know that there was no 'the defendant's quid pro quo at the time of delivery of money and valuables to the defendant.'

C. According to the circumstances revealed by the court below and the statements of the aforementioned related persons, the fact that money and valuables delivered by the court below to the defendant cannot be denied as consideration for resolving the civil petition related to G institution, which is the agency under the jurisdiction of the defendant, and the defendant was aware of the nature of the consideration. On the other hand, the court stated that "if the defendant's personal friendship is established due to the position to conduct a business, the defendant would be able to support the future (30 pages of the original trial)." Accordingly, according to these statements by the court below, the money and valuables delivered to the defendant are all combined with the character of a bribe as a bribe as well as the character of a political fund. However, even if the nature as political fund is partially combined, as seen above, the money and valuables received do not lose the character of a bribe.

With respect to the circumstances in which each J delivers money and valuables to the Defendant, M has stated that “M promised to support KRW 100 million to the Defendant in the course of the delay of the contract” (No. 1090), but the J intentionally avoided the Defendant on the ground of an overseas business trip, etc. (No. 796, No. 3, Defendant 5-6, Defendant 5-6, etc. against J) by continuously demanding M to deliver money after the conclusion of the contract for the first construction project of this case (No. 796, No. 3, and Defendant 5-6, etc. against J). However, there is no fact that M promised to support the Defendant or to support KRW 100,00 if it is well resolved by M.

M unilaterally requires KRW 100 million (18 pages in the original trial). In addition to the statement of the J, in light of the fact that, in order to avoid or mitigate his/her responsibility, M is motiveed to assert the receipt of money and valuables pursuant to the principal payment commitment after the J, the J appears to have provided money and valuables to the Defendant upon the request of M. As such, M appears to have actively demanded KRW 100 million in return for resolving the problem of the construction contract of the G institution related to the construction contract of the G institution. However, such circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the J provided money and valuables to the Defendant as a result of appearance due to the threat of harm and injury of M. Therefore, the crime of bribery cannot be deemed to have been established and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have established the crime of acceptance of bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8297, Dec. 11, 2008).

B. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to illegal action after the acceptance of bribery

1) Whether the Defendant was aware of the quid pro quo

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was paid as compensation for resolving a civil petition regarding the increase in the subcontract price by the HH institution at the time the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the J around April 2016.

(1) From June 2014, the Defendant served as a member of the National Assembly D’s member, and the H institution constitutes a competent agency of D.

(2) On August 12, 2015, J entered into a subcontract with R and S Corporation with the construction cost of KRW 5,753 billion with respect to electrical construction works of Section 2, which is KRW 5,000,000,000. As the subcontracted construction cost was set at a lower level than 30% of the contract amount, the J demanded that R accept the request for an increase in the subcontract price of Section 2 through the Defendant’s assistant M, the National Assembly DD, by exercising pressure on H institutions.

(3) Around September 2015, M prepared a written agreement with the Vice Minister of the H Agency, the Vice President of the H Agency, the Department of RN, and the Vice-President of the H Agency, around October 5, 2015, to preserve I’s deficit through the change of design (No. 226), and M reported the fact to the Defendant.

(4) After that, around April 2016, the Defendant was granted KRW 20 million in cash upon the Defendant’s request to the effect that “S construction is not yet resolved by J at the Defendant’s regional constituency office in C. I does not regard the enemy.”

(5) On July 2017 to August 2017, J asked the Defendant to the effect that R does not accept the request of J, and that the Defendant would not leave the enemy during the re-construction work, and that the Defendant would be able to accept the said request by J to the effect that “I will not be considered as the enemy by phone call to the Director of H Agency Construction at the end of August 2017.”

(6) Around September 5, 2017, W was used to the effect that LY EY’s request was sought from the first executive officer of the H institution’s electricity team X, etc., and L delivered to X the intent that L would fully accept the request of L to increase the construction cost on or around September 5, 2017. WW received X’s report, upon directly finding the Defendant during September 2017, reported to the effect that L, the prime contractor, was able to accept the request of L, the subcontractor, in full amount, for increase in the construction cost of KRW 3.48 billion (Evidence 2373).

(7) On April 2016, J consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court of the court below that the Defendant provided KRW 20 million to the Defendant and attempted to perform the subcontracted work well (No. 1890, No. 2658), and that J provided the Defendant with the amount of KRW 20 million in a situation where the case of the subcontract with R was not resolved at all, the J provided the Defendant with the amount of KRW 20 million in a situation where the case of the subcontract with R was not resolved at all. As such, the J, as a matter of course, naturally, provided the Defendant, who is able to exercise influence over H institutions and R, divided the dialogue related to the case of the subcontract price with R.

(8) The defendant also stated in the prosecutor's office that "at the time the J had been found in the office of local constituency C with support payments around the total period of 2016, the J stated that "at the time of 2908, 2909, 2910, and 2934, No. 2934, the defendant stated that "at the time of 2908, 2909, 2910, and 2934)" was "at the time of the court below's decision that "at the time of 3 to 5 minutes, such talk was about to the assistant who completed the election." The defendant was also aware that the above 20 million won was a consideration for solving civil petitions

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, examining the following circumstances recognized by the court below and the court below's lawfully adopted evidence, it is justifiable to determine that the court below was aware of the defendant's price. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(1) At the lower court on April 2016, the J requested that “M did not want to communicate to oneself and to have its business related to S,” and “Dratian 50 million won,” to which the National Assembly member’s thickness was 50 million won. As the construction work to be conducted at the time was regarded as the enemy, M returned to the Defendant for reasons of falling short of the amount. Furthermore, at that time, the Defendant went back to her own phone at that time, her head office was called as “one son and one son” at our office, and her head office was called as “1,000,000,000 won, and 200,000 won, which was brought to 1,000 won, and 20,000 won, and 1,000 won, was to be delivered to the Defendant’s office at that time, and 20,000 won, was to have come to the Defendant’s office in detail after the election period.”

(2) The Defendant alleged that the part on April 2016 stated that “the Defendant took low-price talked with the Labor Relations Commission,” which stated, stated that the Defendant was aware of the point of time due to the mixture of memory in a state of good health. However, there is no circumstance to view that the Defendant’s above statement was a statement by mistake. (3) Even if the J provided KRW 20 million to the Defendant before he left the front line on April 13, 2016, the fact that around May 2015, the J provided money and valuables equivalent to KRW 50,000 to the Defendant in relation to the order work of G institution, and that the Defendant’s assistant officer provided money and valuables to the Defendant in return for resolving the complaints related to H institution, and that the Defendant provided money and valuables to the Defendant on April 2016 or around KRW 200,000, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s offering of money and valuables to the Defendant in return for the receipt of political funds from the J institution.

2) Whether there was an unlawful act

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court explained in its legal doctrine that “illegal act” referred to in the crime of bribery after acceptance of bribe refers to any act that violates his/her duties and includes not only the act itself but also the act that is objectively related thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003); even if performance of duties is performed within the scope of discretion because the act is discretionary, so long as the acceptance of bribe, etc. was deemed to have influenced the act itself, it constitutes “illegal act in the crime of illegal acceptance after acceptance of bribe” (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decisions 2013No143, Jun. 14, 2013; 20163244, Mar. 16, 2017); and determined that the lower court’s lawful adoption of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence that the Defendant’s issuance of a bribe to a member of the National Assembly constitutes “illegal pressure on the part of the National Assembly that the Defendant was a member of the National Assembly.”

(1) W stated in the court below that “The direct phone calls from the incumbent member of the National Assembly is very exceptional. It is very rare to confirm the relevant contents, and the defendant was found that R, the principal contractor, agreed to accept the I’s request.” As such, it seems that the defendant directly sent the phone to the executive officer of H institution, the competent agency of the National Assembly D, and then requested the delivery and resolution of the complaint of a specific company, at considerable cost.

(2) Since the Defendant received KRW 20 million from J around April 2016, the two months later, and the vice president of I found the Plaintiff as a member's office and requested resolution of the civil petition related to the I's subcontract with R. The Defendant's pocket book contains specific details of the I's subcontract contract with R (Evidence 2803) around October 2016, and the Defendant continued to receive from the I's side a request for resolution of civil petition related to R's subcontract with R.

(3) The J stated that “Around April 2016, the Defendant still did not resolve the case of subcontract price with R during July to August 2017, when the Defendant gave KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and that the Defendant would correct it.” The Defendant, around August 2017, demanded the head of H agency Construction Headquarters W to resolve the problem of subcontract price between R and B. In this instance, the Defendant, who is a member of the National Assembly, directly called the phone to the officer of the competent agency of the National Assembly D to resolve the civil petition of the bribe, constitutes “an unlawful act committed after infringing the fairness of duties,” and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a legitimate duty of a member of the National Assembly.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In addition to the circumstances presented by the court below, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below is justified in holding that the defendant's act constitutes an unlawful act as referred to in the crime of wrongful punishment after accepting the bribery. The defendant's allegation of mistake of facts

(1) Even if the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the J on April 2016, and there was a time interval of 1 year and 4 months, as stated in the facts charged, from the executives of the H institution, around August 2017, when 1 year and 4 months elapsed, the Defendant continued to discuss the problem, as the lower court explained, since the H institution case requested by the J while granting KRW 20 million to the executives of the H institution was not resolved, and the Defendant appears to have received KRW 20 million once again from the J and requested by the H institution, and thus, the Defendant’s occupational act was not affected by the bribe, etc.

(2) Meanwhile, according to Article 31 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 34(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the subcontract amount of construction works falls short of 82% of the subcontract amount, the ordering person may examine the subcontractor’s ability to perform construction works and the propriety of the subcontract contents. Article 2 Subparag. 4(a) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry does not include electrical construction works under the Electrical Construction Business Act, but the provision attached to the established rules of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, which requires the maintenance of a certain subcontract ratio, to a certain amount of electrical construction works, according to his testimony, is applicable. However, at the time of the contract concluded with R on August 12, 2015, the subcontract amount was 5,753,000,000 won and KRW 15,154,49,179,173 (R) (the contract amount was 6,950,505,95).

According to this factual basis, I, a subcontractor, demands that the National Assembly member correct the low-price subcontract problem, and the Defendant’s delivery of the civil petition to the ordering party itself does not constitute an unlawful act. However, as long as the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 20 million from J in connection with the result of a subcontract’s civil petition, and requested that W, the head of H agency’s construction headquarters, by telephone upon the request of J, undergo a resolution of civil petition, it is recognized that the number of bribes per se has an impact on the performance of duties, and this is sufficient to be evaluated as an unlawful act, as it infringes on the fairness of duties.

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s telephone content was not a matter of low-price subcontract, but a matter of company circumstance is difficult because it did not receive progress payment. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s phone call is sufficiently recognized as a matter of law to correct low-price subcontract problem, and even if the Defendant called for the purpose of resolving the matter of progress payment as alleged by the Defendant, insofar as the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 20 million and requested a civil petition resolution, it constitutes an unlawful act.

(4) The Supreme Court Decision 95Do2320 Decided December 12, 1995, which the defendant invoked, states that a public official's judgment is not a "illegal act" if a public official's judgment is not unlawful as a result of a continuous performance of his duties. However, with respect to civil petitions demanding that resolve the issue of subcontract construction cost between R, the defendant does not bear a continuous obligation to exercise his authority or resolve civil petitions to correct it, but the act of performance of his duties falls within the discretionary scope. In this case, where the act of performance of duties is discretionary, the issue of acceptance of bribe, etc. is affected by the act of performance of duties, and thus, the issue is different depending on each other.

The above judgment is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.With respect to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Political Funds Act relating to the Z,

1) The judgment of the court below is to determine whether the defendant received KRW 10 million as stated in No. 4 of the crime sight list No. 10 million, and KRW 20 million as stated in No. 5

In the lower judgment, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant merely received KRW 5 million from Z on March 20, 2014, and KRW 22,5 million on April 22, 2014. However, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant stated that: (b) the Defendant had consistently stated that the Defendant provided KRW 10 million on March 20, 2014; (c) the Defendant had consistently stated that the Defendant provided KRW 200,000 to Z on April 22, 2014; (b) there was no reason to doubt its credibility; (d) M, consistent with the Prosecutor’s Office and the lower court, KRW 20,000 to Z on or before March 20, 2014; and (e) KRW 200,000 to Z on or before April 22, 2014; and (e) KRW 201:36,000,000,0000 for 30,00 books of work.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s fact-finding is justifiable. This part of the Defendant’s allegation of mistake is without

2) Whether 500 million won or more stated in the six list of crime sights is given or received

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant alleged in the lower court that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received KRW 500 million from the Z as in the grounds for appeal. However, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant received KRW 500 million in cash from 2 in relation to the AA market airspace by taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

(1) The Z consistently stated that “at the time other preliminary candidates paid 1 billion won or more as the Gongcheon-do Constitution. At the time, the Z was prepared and delivered to the Defendant via M after hearing the text of the lawsuit and preparing 500 million won. On May 14, 2014, the AAP candidate went away from M around May 20, 2014, and then received a return of KRW 500 million from M upon contact with M.” The statements of this Z are consistent and there is no other reason to suspect credibility.

(2) At the court below’s decision that “M made a statement that the Z prepared for KRW 500 million to the Defendant”, it was accepted by the Defendant without any particular answer. On May 2014, M took a Defendant’s car driving officer, and transferred the Z to the intersection of the vehicle after receiving cash amounting to KRW 500 million from the road parking lot at the center of the National Assembly. The Defendant reported the process of receiving KRW 500 million as above. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant ordered the Z to return KRW 500 million to the Z as it is, and then the Defendant returned KRW 500 million to the Defendant’s car driving along with the Defendant’s car driving on May 20, 2014. Such statement is not only consistent with the AB’s detailed statement but also consistent with the AB’s statement.

(3) 피고인의 운전기사인 AB은 원심 법정에서 "M가 누군가로부터 무엇인가를 받아 차 트렁크에 실었다. 그날 저녁에 피고인이 퇴근하기 위해 차에 탔을 때 피고인이 물건을 받았냐고 물어서 트렁크에 받아놨다고 답하였다"고 진술하였다.

(4) It is difficult for M to formally receive money of KRW 500 million from the Defendant’s passenger car without the Defendant’s instruction or approval by driving AB, which is the Defendant’s driver.

(5) Even according to the Defendant’s statement in the court below’s decision, the Defendant appears to have returned KRW 500 million after confirming the Z’s decline in the AA market candidate, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant immediately intended to return the said KRW 500 million to BY at the time. The Defendant, as at the time, tried to use the Z’s 500 million won as a rain fund in relation to the AA market candidate status in the Z, to BY, etc., depending on the circumstances. The Defendant appears to have tried to directly use the Z’s 500 million won as a political fund. The Defendant appears to have received KRW 500 million in cash through M, and the Defendant merely delivered BY to BY or was in custody of the Z in order to return it to the Z.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below that the defendant received KRW 500 million from the Z in relation to the official space is justified. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without

(1) Z은 당심 법정에서, "2015년 4월 중순경 M에게 3억 원 정도 준비했는데 피고인에게 의사를 확인해달라고 부탁하였다. M는 '의원님께 여쭈어보겠다'는 취지로 답변한 후 2억 원 정도 더 만들어보라고 이야기하였다"고 진술하고 있다. M도 당심 법정에서, "피고인에게 Z이 3억 원 정도를 준비했다는 취지로 보고를 드렸더니 피고인이 특별한 이야기를 하지 않아 '조금 더 준비를 해볼까요.'라는 취지로 말씀을 드렸더니 거부하지 않아서 묵시적으로 승낙한 것으로 이해하였다"고 진술하고 있다. 이와 같이 M는 피고인에게 사전에 보고하고 Z으로부터 5억 원을 받은 것이라는 취지로 일관되게 진술하고 있고, 이러한 M의 진술은 Z의 진술과도 일치하며, 보좌관인 M가 피고인의 승낙 없이 5억 원이라는 거액을 받기도 어려운 점에 비추어 보면, M의 이러한 진술은 신빙성이 있다.

(2) On the other hand, ZY made a statement at the end of April 2014 as to the introduction of the defendant at the prosecution (Evidence 1721). The court below made a statement that "the defendant 50 million won was affixed with the same seal as the defendant's introduction and that "the defendant was not memoryd", and "the 300 million won stories was Y was Y," more specific, and "the 300 million won stories was Y was Y was Y, but it was sent to M assistant after the delivery of BY, and the reason for memory is that the defendant was no more than 50 million won in trust in the process of delivery of BY to the defendant, and that it was delivered to the defendant. It is reasonable to conclude that YY was delivered to the defendant through MY, regardless of the defendant's use or delivery of part of the 500 million won to B, and that it was no more than 500 million won in the court below's statement to the effect that it was made."

(3) As long as the concept of “contribution” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Political Funds Act is defined as “all acts of providing political funds” and is punished by specifying that the lending of money and valuables is also deemed as donation, even if the Defendant received KRW 500 million as an intention to return at the time of the death of the Z from public river, it constitutes the Defendant’s receipt of political funds as long as it was received under the pretext of political funds (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10422, Feb. 26, 2009).

(4) We affirm the Defendant’s assertion that the part that the lower court determined that Z was bY in return for 50 million won was erroneous, but it was just to reject the Defendant’s assertion that Z was simply delivered to BY or stored 500 million won when Z was temporarily returned to BY.

3) Whether the defendant received KRW 20 million written in No. 7 of the crime sight list

A) The judgment of the court below

The Defendant alleged that there was no receipt of KRW 20 million from 20,000 from 1st May 2014 in the lower court. However, the lower court found that: (a) on May 2014, 201, the Defendant stated that: (b) on the basis of evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., (c) the Z did not accurately memory the Defendant’s death with ZS; (d) the Defendant did not directly state the amount of KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant; (b) at the prosecution, the Defendant provided the Defendant with a preparation for KRW 20,000 in the house and divided it into an envelope; (b) the Defendant and the occupation of some of the Defendant and the occupation of the Defendant, and (c) the Defendant stated that Z was 0,000,000 won in the restaurant, including 20,000 won, and 20,000,000 won was c) the Defendant stated in the court room.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the court below stated that Z granted KRW 20 million to a police officer on May 2014, 201; and (b) there are no other circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statement; and (c) the defendant has received KRW 20 million. The defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in this part has no merit.

4) Whether the person received KRW 50 million in connection with officialship or not

A) Relevant legal principles

Articles 32 subparag. 1 and 45(2)5 of the Political Funds Act provide that “a person who has contributed or has received political funds “in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate in the election of public officials for public office” shall be punished. The legislative purpose of the aforementioned provisions is to ensure a fair and fair election by fundamentally blocking influence from the candidate’s right to vote in the election of public officials elected. Therefore, “in relation to the recommendation of a candidate” in the above provisions is the case where the provision of political funds falls under the price or case of a candidate’s recommendation, and even if not, it may affect any form in the recommendation of a candidate (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Do6307, Sept. 6, 2007; 2009Do7436, Oct. 22, 2009). Such determination of relevance ought to be based on a comprehensive consideration of the status of the parties related to the receipt of political funds, the process and method of delivery of political funds to the relevant candidate at the time.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, determined that, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant received KRW 550 million from the Z in relation to the candidate recruitment for the election for public office in the Z, all of which was received five times as indicated in the list 3 through 7 of the crimes committed.

(1) In the 6-4 local election, which was scheduled to be implemented on June 4, 2014, the Z wanted to be recruited as a candidate for the AA market in the relevant political party.

(2) On March 10, 2014, the Defendant was appointed as a member of the recommendation management committee for a candidate for the Bparty Gyeonggi-do Party, and the candidate nomination right for the AA market was transferred from the recommendation management committee for the candidate for the public office of Gyeonggi-do Party to the Central Public Officials Election Management Committee until April 30, 2014, and the Defendant was in a position to directly participate in the AA market candidate nomination, and at the same time, was called the so-called “BZ member” and was known as a close relation to the CA, which has a significant influence on the party. From the perspective of the Z, the Defendant was expected to have exercised influence on the AA market candidate nomination.

(3) On March 2014, Z consistently requested Mman to introduce the Defendant as a candidate for the AA market. Since then, on March 10, 2014, Z expressed clearly that the Defendant provided political funds of KRW 550 million in total to the Defendant, starting from March 10, 2014, KRW 500 million. It is natural to view that Z as a candidate for the AA market, who was willing to participate in local elections, was not a local election but a large amount of political funds granted to the Defendant, which were not a mere support payment.

(4) From March 10, 2014 to April 22, 2014, Z made a clear statement on whether there was an explicit conversation between the Defendant and the Defendant when reducing KRW 35 million from March 10, 2014 to April 22, 2014. However, the prosecutor made a statement on recognizing that there was a conversation related to the Defendant’s election. The prosecutor made a clear statement that “I would like to report the Defendant’s going out of the AA market election at the first place on March 10, 2014, and I would like to answer that it was extremely harmful from the Defendant.” (No evidence 1213) The Z’s legal statement does not reverse the prosecutor’s statement, but merely it appears that the Z is a passive attitude when the Defendant was present as a witness in the situation where the Defendant was under trial as a grantr of political funds.

(5) On April 8, 2014, the Defendant sent text messages to the Z, and informed the name and contact of the members recommended by the public officials of the Gyeonggi-do Party to the Z, and on May 14, 2014, the Defendant appears to have actively expressed to the Z the Defendant, who received the audit message from the AA market, on May 14, 2014, on the following: (a) 2 years and 4 years and 2 years and 4 years and 5 years and 2 years and 2 years and 2 years and 2 years and 2 years and 3 years and 2 years and 2 years and 2 years have passed since it was decided to dismiss the message."

(6) Although the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Z around May 14, 2014, when he was killed in May 2014, the amount of KRW 20 million, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant had made a lot of efforts to ensure that the Defendant made a lot of efforts in connection with the official election during that period and received the Defendant’s assistance in continuing to engage in the future politics” (No. 1713, 1720), the Defendant’s statement is consistent with this, and the amount of KRW 20 million and the amount of KRW 20 million as well as the amount of money and valuables provided over the four times above shall be deemed as political funds granted in relation to the official election of the Z.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in addition to the circumstances stated by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is justifiable to determine that all of the KRW 50 million offered by the court below was paid in relation to Gongcheon. The defendant's assertion of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

(1) The Z stated to the prosecution that the defendant made a specific statement in relation to the public order as follows while delivering the amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 10 million,00,000,000 as indicated in No. 3 of the Crime List No. 4, and KRW 20,000,000 as indicated in No. 5,00,000 in the list of crimes, and that the court below made a somewhat passive statement on this matter at the court of original instance, but at the court of original instance, it stated to the effect that the above amount was delivered for comprehensive purposes

(A) Around the end of 2013, after introducing M, who is an assistant officer of the defendant, the defendant was released to M, and the defendant expressed his/her intent to leave the 6/4 local election for the A market election, and led M to frequent arrival. The Z stated in the prosecutor's office that "I want to leave the A market election as of March 10, 2014 upon introduction of M," and that "I want to leave the A market election," and "I want to leave the 500,000 won, while I want to leave the 6/4 local election for the 6/4 local election for M," and that "I want to leave the 200,000 won, while I wish to leave the 50,000 won," and "I want to leave the 200,000 won on the 200,000 won, if I again leave the 200,000 won."

B) The B Party A market candidate invitation was closed on March 15, 2014. The prosecution submitted a candidate's application to the National Assembly before the end of the year, and the prosecution called "a sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa sa s.)."

C) At the prosecution, there is no definite reply that the Z will provide the M with “type, and low,” and that it would be more appropriate to prepare for the personnel thickness of the A, and on April 22, 2014, when the defendant was found to have been up to 5 million won in the presence where the defendant was found, he stated to the effect that Z will grow up with her life by making up her five million won in a fake bag (Gongcheon Examination Committee). He stated to the effect that Z will be "I will know, but will be nothing but it will be."

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have kept in custody to deliver KRW 500 million to BY, and the Defendant’s receipt of political funds of KRW 500 million. The offense of violation of the Political Funds Act regarding the recommendation of the candidate is not limited to the party who receives political funds to a political party, etc., but the person receives political funds in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate in an election for public office. The offense of violation of the Political Funds Act is established when a person who receives political funds receives a contribution of political funds in relation to the recommendation of a candidate. If the person who received the contribution of political funds does not necessarily have the right of public administration, and if it may have an impact on any form in the recommendation of the candidate, it is acknowledged that the recommendation of the candidate is relevant to the candidate. Even if the Defendant’s right of public administration in the AA market was transferred to the Central Public Administration Committee at the time of providing KRW 500 million to the Defendant, the ZY is expected to introduce

(3) On May 14, 2014, the Z has disappearedd from the airspace and provided money or goods to the Defendant on May 2014, 201, which was delivered to the Defendant on May 14, 2014, upon request of the Defendant. ② The Defendant continued to provide the Defendant with money or goods in two airspaces, such as informing the Z of the name and contact details of the members recommended by the public officials of the Gyeonggi-do Party and introducing the Z to the BY. This seems to have affected the offer of money or goods. ③ After the decline from the airspace, the Z provided KRW 20 million with an auditor’s indication on the fact that the Defendant made many efforts related to the official airspace, ④ in light of the fact that the Z provided all the Defendant to the public officials by continuous means related to the local election of June 4, 2016.

D. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of Political Funds Act related to AI

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant received a total of KRW 240 million in cash under the pretext of principal, etc. after politics from AI over 11 times, as indicated in the list of crimes Nos. 8 through 18, and received a contribution of political funds in a way that is not determined by the Political Funds Act.

2) The gist of the defendant's lawsuit

The Defendant did not receive money from AI as stated in the list of crimes No. 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14. There was a fact that the Defendant received KRW 10 million out of KRW 20 million out of KRW 1,000,000 as stated in the facts charged No. 11 of the crime list No. 11, and KRW 20 million out of KRW 13,000,000 among KRW 20,000,000,000 out of KRW 15, and KRW 5 million out of KRW 30,000,000 among the facts charged No. 16, KRW 10,000,000 as stated in the facts charged No. 17, and KRW 20,000 out of KRW 1,00,000 as stated in the facts charged No. 18.

3) The judgment of the court below

A) The court below held that the statement made by AI on the amount of money paid to the defendant is credibility in light of the following: the statement made by AI, a money donor, refers to the entry in the pocketbook prepared by M or the statement made by M, and the statement made by M is deemed to be part of the statement made by AI, but the defendant, a member of the National Assembly, expected the influence of the defendant and provided political funds so that AI can be employed as an executive officer ofCC, and the contents recorded in the pocketbook prepared by M are correct. Therefore, in a situation where AI can be punished as a donor, there is no special motive or circumstance to make a false statement in exaggeration about the amount of money delivered to the defendant in a situation where AI can be punished as a donor, and there is no specific statement made by AI as to what is not attributable to M’s pocket or M’s statement made by prosecution and court below.

However, the court below held that it is difficult to believe that the part in the statement of M, which stated that the AI transferred the case to M and all of the support payments to the defendant, is likely to have been at issue in connection with support payments, etc. according to the AP's statement, etc., and that M appears to have been suspected that M did not deliver part of support payments received during that period, M was punished for three years and six months for a crime related to bribe at around 2009, and M appears to have been sentenced to punishment for three years and six months for a crime related to bribe, and that M was an exaggerated speech that is difficult to believe the authenticity in the court of the court of the court below, and M was not delivered to the defendant to avoid additional criminal liability, or that there was sufficient motive to make a statement as if the entire amount was delivered in order to avoid the delivery.

B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged in relation to the specific determination by the list of crimes, in cases where it is deemed that the AI M and the Defendant together delivered money on the job where only the Defendant is the Defendant is located, on the ground that it is difficult to avoid the possibility that M would not deliver it to the Defendant as seen earlier, and on the ground that the AI did not confirm the fact of delivery to the Defendant, it found the Defendant guilty on the remaining amount, and acquitted the Defendant on the remaining amount. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that the amount as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 and KRW 10 million out of KRW 2,00,000,000, KRW 15 million out of KRW 2,000,000 among KRW 2,00,000, KRW 1818,000 among KRW 80,00,000 among KRW 381 of the Political Funds Act.

4) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

다만 AI이 범죄일람표 8번 기재 1,000만 원 부분과 관련하여, 검찰과 원심 법정에서는 피고인과 통화한 사실은 솔직히 기억나지 않는다고 진술하다가 당심 법정에서는 통화한 사실이 있다고 진술을 번복하고, 범죄일람표 18번 기재 2,000만 원 부분과 관련하여, 검찰에서는 피고인을 만나 직접 전달한 것인지에 대해서는 명확히 진술하지 않은 채 피고인의 딸이 결혼한다고 하여 2,000만 원을 주었는데, 2,000만 원 중 1,000만 원을 CA 의원이 대표 선거를 하는 데 지원하라고 준 것인지는 기억나지 않는다고 진술하고, 원심 법정에서는 2014, 6. 20. 피고인을 보지 못하고 응접실에서 M에게 2,000만 원을 주었다고 진술하다가 당심 법정에서는 의원실에서 피고인과 M가 있는 자리에서 혼사를 축하드린다고 하면서 2,000만 원을 건넸다고 진술을 번복하였다. 이와 같이 AI이 당심에서는 원심에서보다 전반적으로 피고인에게 불리한 취지로 진술하기는 하였다. 그러나 AI이 검찰과 원심 법정에서 M의 수첩 내용대로 2억 4,000만 원을 제공한 사실은 모두 인정하면서도 2013년 구정 무렵 피고인과 통화한 사실에 대해서는 솔직히 기억이 나지 않는다고 진술하였는데 달리 전화통화 한 부분만 허위로 진술 할 이유가 없는 점, AI은 피고인에게 직접 축의금 등으로 2,000만 원을 주었다고 진술하면서도 피고인과 딸 혼사에 관한 덕담이나 이야기는 하지 않았다고 진술하고 있어 과연 피고인을 직접 만나서 준 것인지 의심이 드는 점, AI이 제1심에서 증언한 후 검사가 2018. 6. 28. AI에 대하여 정치자금법 위반죄로 공소를 제기하자 검사에게 잘 보이고 정치후원금 기부자로서 자백하고 선처를 구하기 위하여 위와 같이 진술을 번복한 것으로 볼 여지가 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, AI이 당심에서 일부 진술을 번복하였다.는 사정만으로 무죄 부분에 관한 원심의 판단이 잘못되었다고 보기 어렵다.

Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant cannot receive KRW 20 million from the council room because it is Sundays on September 22, 2013 regarding the statement No. 14 of the crime sight list No. 14. However, the Defendant himself/herself recognizes the receipt of KRW 5 million out of KRW 20 million, the date indicated on October 13, 2013, which is the date indicated on 15. As such, the Defendant may work at the office of Sundays, it cannot be deemed that the AI did not provide money and valuables to the Defendant solely on Sundays.

In the end, there is no reason to believe that there is a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles of the defendant and prosecutor about the violation of AI-related

E. Regarding the prosecutor and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to violation of the AC Political Fund Act

1) Relevant legal principles concerning the admissibility of each suspect interrogation protocol (No. 85, No. 153) of the prosecution against AC

Article 312(4) and (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that if a protocol or a statement in which a prosecutor or a judicial police officer made a statement by a person other than a defendant is to be used as evidence, it shall be prepared according to due process and method, and that such protocol is the same as the statement made before a prosecutor or a judicial police officer, etc., and the defendant or defense counsel may have examined the person making the original statement at a preparatory hearing or on the public trial date. In light of the principle of trial-oriented, directism, and guarantee of cross-examination as prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, the realization of criminal justice justice due to discovery of substantial truth through compliance with due process, and the legislative background of the above provision, etc., “examination of the defendant or defense counsel’s person making the original statement” under the above provision is insufficient to simply provide the defendant, etc. with an opportunity to examine on the public trial date, and it should reach

Meanwhile, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "in cases falling under Article 312 or 313, where a person who needs to make a statement at a preparatory hearing or on a trial date is unable to make a statement because he/she is dead, ill, residing abroad or his/her whereabouts is unknown, or any other similar cause exists, such protocol and other documents may be admitted as evidence." However, in light of the language and purport of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act amended by Act No. 8496 of June 1, 2007 and the contents of the provision on the right to refuse to testify, etc., if a witness who attends the court refuses to make a statement by legitimately exercising the right to refuse to testify as prescribed by Articles 148 and 149 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it does not fall under "where a witness cannot make a statement due to any other similar cause" (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Do6788, May 17, 2012).

B) The judgment of the court below

On April 2, 2018, the court below found that AC appeared as a witness on the fourth trial date of the court below and took an oath pursuant to Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and confirmed that each of the above suspect interrogation records, etc. was prepared in accordance with due process and methods, and entered the same contents as the statement at the time, and then rejected the prosecutor's question or defense counsel's cross-examination on the facts charged. However, the court below rejected all of the testimony on the grounds that the witness in question or defense counsel's cross-examination related to the defendant's facts charged can be prosecuted as a criminal prosecution under Article 148 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, on July 3, 2018, the court below clearly stated that he/she would again be present as a witness on the 13th trial date, and that he/she refused to testify or give no testimony on his/her defense counsel, and determined that the defendant or defense counsel's statement acknowledged that AC was genuinely established in the court below's protocol, etc.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination

The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal as to the admissibility of evidence is without merit. However, according to M’s pocket book content and M’s statement, the Defendant may be found guilty of the facts charged as stated in M’s List 21.

2) Whether the defendant received KRW 50 million, written in 200,000,000,000 (the part on appeal by the defendant)

A) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant received the current amount of KRW 50 million from AC around April 20, 2014, as indicated in the list of crimes No. 20.

(1) consistently from the prosecutor’s office to the court of the court below, M met with the Defendant at AF hotel coffee shop located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, AC only around Apr. 20, 2014. AC made a statement to the effect that “IC would not have to conduct personnel affairs for the CA or BY while giving the Defendant the amount of KRW 50 million. At that time, AC had prepared for KRW 50,000,000, which is considered to be a large distribution.” At that time, AC took over the above status of KRW 50,000 to the Defendant and stated in a relatively detailed statement.

(2) In the pocket book drawn up by M, it is stated that “4/20 gram 15:00 gram 1 gram 200 gram 200 gram 200 gram 200 gram 200 gram 2814” as to this part of the facts charged (No. 1076) and M stated that a person who gives KRW 50 million to the prosecution is fit for AC (No. 2814).

(3) The defendant made a statement in the court of the court below to the effect that "AC had a photograph affixed with the CA on April 21, 2014, and introduced AC along with the background similar to CM and CN so that AC may have a photograph affixed." In full view of the defendant's statement and M, it is reasonable to view that AC, which was prepared for the withdrawal of a local election, had been able to have a photograph stamped together with the efics of the parties, as of April 20, 2014, the previous defendant received KRW 50 million from AC as of April 20, 2014.

(4) On April 20, 2014, the defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by AC’s defense counsel during the prosecutor’s investigation process contains a statement that AC delivers KRW 50 million to the Defendant as political funds (No. 1952).

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have recognized that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from AC around April 20, 2014. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in this part is without merit.

3) Whether each of the money listed in Nos. 19 and 20 in the crime sight list has been received in connection with the success (the part of the defendant's appeal)

A) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant was found to have received KRW 70 million in total from AC’s local election AD local election of KRW 19,200,000,000, in relation to the success of the members of AC.

(1) During March 2014, M stated in the court of the court below that "AC sought a personnel from the defendant to the extent that his previous convictions are not at issue in the process of AD City AF Hotel, and on April 20, 2014, M stated that "I would not have a personnel for CA or BY, even though I would like to receive 50 million won from the defendant at AF hotel coffee shop," and stated that "I would not have a personnel for CA or BY," in relation to this part of the facts charged, it is stated that "I would not request the assistance of 50,000 won to the National Assembly member."

(2) Although the Defendant did not have a direct authority over a local election AD, the Defendant was known to the close relation to the CA, which was called the so-called "BZ member" and exercises considerable influence over the party, and thus, AC seems to have been expected to assist the Defendant in receiving the official election of the local election AD.

(3) AC had a criminal record related to the assault of possession, which could be sufficiently problematic in the process of the examination of Gong107, 2812 (Evidence 107, 2812), but eventually, during a local election of June 4, 2014, AC was recruited as a candidate for AD National Assembly members of B political parties.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. The Defendant’s allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine is

4) Whether the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from June 14, 2014 (the part on the appeal by the Prosecutor)

A) The summary of this part of the facts charged (No. 21 of the crime sight table)

On June 14, 2014, the Defendant received a cash of KRW 10 million from AC for the purpose of political support, etc. from the Assembly room of the Defendant in the National Assembly member hall, and received a contribution of political funds in such a way that is not prescribed by the Political Funds Act.

B) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as a pocket book and M, is insufficient to deem that this part of the facts charged is recognized, as long as it cannot be used as evidence by the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol, etc. of AC as seen earlier.

(1) The Defendant consistently stated on June 14, 2014 that no money was received from AC from the Defendant’s Assembly room.

(2) The pocket book written by M is indicated as “the thickness and direct delivery of 1,00 National Assembly Secretariat AC and CG party representative election campaign subsidies” (No. 2815), but M states state in the court that “the content known to AC is written. However, if June 14, 2014 is a Saturday, the Defendant has not been in the parliamentary room. The same is written by mistake.” As such, it is difficult to specify when and wherever the said book is delivered to the Defendant.”

(3) M did not appear to have observed or confirmed whether AC actually delivered KRW 10 million to the defendant, and only from AC, it appears that the statement was written in AC’s pocket book, which was written abstractly on the premise of the contents written in the pocket book, and it was also written on June 14, 2014, and in light of M’s statement of M that the defendant does not attend the Council room, it is doubtful that the defendant met AC in the Council room on the above date.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept for the following reasons. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it may be found guilty of this part of the facts charged:

(1) On June 14, 2014, in the pocketbook where M prepares a list of receipt of political funds, the content of “1,000 National Assembly office, AC, and CG party representatives election campaign subsidies” is written as “1,000 won thickness, direct delivery”. The prosecutor stated that “AC is the time after AC was elected as a member of AD in the local election in 2014, but AC was the representative of the party branch of the B Party that is scheduled to be a policeman during July 14, 2014, and AC declared that “AC would be used as a election subsidy for CA members, and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.” (Article 1081, 1082), and the specific details of the time of delivery and delivery of funds.”

(2) The court below stated in the court below that "AC knew that it was 10 million won to the defendant at the time, time, and place recorded in the above pocket book," and that "I am her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers her her her her her. her her her. her her her.

(3) Meanwhile, in the lower court’s trial, M made a statement to the effect that “If Saturday was a Saturday, the Defendant had been in a parliamentary room and the date was written mistakenly” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70 pages 16, Apr. 16, 2018). However, the purport of M is merely a trend that if Saturday was Saturday on June 14, 2014, it may have mistakenly entered his/her own date if it was Saturday. M is a mere fact that the prosecutor’s office and the court of the lower court consistently stated to the effect that “AC was equivalent to KRW 10 million under the pretext of delivering the CA to the Defendant on June 14, 2014.” Ultimately, since a member of the National Assembly could have been in an office on Saturdays, it cannot be deemed that it does not have been in an office on Saturdays, and thus, it does not conform with the general rule of experience. In short, it cannot be deemed that M&C’s statement and credibility in the prosecutor’s book alone.

(4) As to the violation of AC-related Political Funds Act, M’s pocket book contents and M’s statement parts are sufficiently reliable, the facts charged as stated in the list of crimes 19,20,22, and 23 are deemed guilty. There is no special reason to reject the credibility of M’s pocket book contents and M’s statement only with respect to the part of KRW 10 million indicated in the list of crimes.

D) Sub-committee

This part of the prosecutor's allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is justified.

5) Whether the amount of KRW 50 million received in the second half of 2014 is loaned or political funds (the defendant's appeal part) is granted or received.

A) The facts of acceptance of the relevant legal principles (the same applies to the violation of the AP-related Political Funds Act) should be determined by the following: (i) whether the money received is a political fund if it is not received as a political fund but claimed as a loan; (ii) whether the money was made out of the loan; (iii) whether the donor’s demand for repayment or the recipient’s intent of repayment; (iv) whether the principal or interest was paid; and (v) whether the public official’s report on property was filed, etc.

B) Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from AC in the second half of the year 2014 as a political fund, not a loan.

(1) From 2005 to 2005, AC went out of the FB-day local AE election as a Si Council member of AD, but went missing, and was elected as a Si Council member on June 4, 2014. As seen earlier, AC issued the Defendant a KRW 10 million for a political support on April 20, 2014 and delivered KRW 10 million for a political support on June 14, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 12524, Mar. 20, 2014; Act No. 12513, Apr. 20, 2014>

(2) AC delivered KRW 50 million to the defendant during the second half of 2014, and the defendant did not have any arrangement about interest or maturity at the time, and there was no demand or receipt of interest from the defendant later (the defendant asserts that the defendant prepared a loan certificate at the time).

(3) Upon detention on October 11, 2017 by the Defendant’s assistant M, the Defendant offered AC a KRW 53 million on October 17, 2017, and requested AC to make a statement as if he returned KRW 53 million on April 27, 2017, which was before the prosecution investigation, on April 27, 2017. Accordingly, AC made a false statement on its own pocket book as if the Defendant returned KRW 53 million.

(4) The Defendant asked AB, a driver, to make a false statement about the time and circumstances during which the amount of KRW 53 million was returned to AB and AC.

(5) At the court of the court below, M is aware that the Defendant prepared a loan certificate from AC during the second half of 2014 and borrowed KRW 50 million. Since then, AC did not have any comments that the Defendant would pay the above KRW 50 million.”

(6) The defense counsel’s written opinion submitted by the AC to the prosecution during the investigation process is indicated to the effect that AC is political funds in the amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant in the latter part of 2014.

(Evidence 1952)

(7) In registering a public official’s property as of December 31, 2016, the Defendant and AD City, a member of the National Assembly, did not report the above-mentioned 50 million claims and obligations. At the time, the Defendant and AC did not recognize them as claims and obligations.

(8) Even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, received KRW 50 million in the latter part of the year 2014, and prepared a loan certificate, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant and AC cannot be deemed to have received KRW 50 million by their intent of borrowing or lending.

C) The lower court is justifiable to have determined that KRW 50 million received from AC in the latter part of 2014 was political funds. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine is without merit.

F. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles on violation of the AP-related Political Funds Act

1) Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, the lower court can be recognized that the Defendant’s KRW 70 million received from AP around 2015 constituted a political fund rather than a loan borrowed from BP with the intent to repay later.

A) AP is a business operating the LAR, which is a general management company, such as a model LAP. Since ten years ago, M was known, and M was consulted with M, and the Defendant was introduced to the Council Center around 2014. Since then, AP and the Defendant maintained a friendly relationship, such as conducting personnel affairs frequently, and the Defendant introduced AP to AP the president or the president of the Construction Company.

B) AP listens to the words that the level of KRW 100 million is urgently needed from M and the Defendant around 2015, and delivers KRW 70 million as the borrowed money. At that time, AP did not receive a loan certificate, did not enter into an agreement on the due date or interest, and did not receive a security, and paid KRW 70 million in cash.

C) At the prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s court, the AP considered that the Defendant was unable to return money to the National Assembly members, and there was a need to receive it in the future. This is because the Defendant, a member of the National Assembly D, was expected to receive assistance in connection with the business. In fact, the AP did not demand payment of principal or interest to the Defendant for a period exceeding two years from the date of commencement of the investigation into the Defendant from around B of 2015 to B of 2017.

D) Upon being detained by M on October 11, 2017, the Defendant, around October 16, 2017, issued a false statement to the effect that: (a) around October 16, 2017, the Defendant: (b) retroactively prepared a loan certificate (Evidence 441) stating that “a loan of KRW 70 million from AP to AP is to be borrowed on April 30, 2015,” and “a loan of KRW 70 million from AP is to be repaid on April 30, 2015,” and (c) requested AP to make a false statement. Since then, the Defendant again requested AP to prepare a receipt by telephone to the Defendant; and (d) that AP only requested the Defendant to make a false statement.

On May 18, 2015, the receipt was made by false setting up and cycleed.

E) When a public official’s property is registered, the Defendant did not report the amount of KRW 70 million received from AP as his/her obligation. The Defendant only deposited KRW 20 million on the AP side through his/her wife on May 17, 2018 and May 19, 201 when the first instance trial was in progress.

2) In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s 70 million won received from AP was not a loan but a political fund. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine is without merit.

G. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles as to the violation of the Political Funds Act relating to A Q Q

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant received a total of KRW 70 million in cash under the pretext of election funds, political support funds, etc. four times from Q, as indicated in Agura Table 25 to 28, and received the contribution of political funds in a way that is not determined by the Political Funds Act.

2) The gist of the defendant's lawsuit

The amount of KRW 30 million indicated in No. 26 of the Crime List No. 27 shall not be regarded as political funds since the Defendant’s wife borrowed the purchase price of a motor vehicle to be used. The amount of KRW 10 million stated in No. 27 shall not have been delivered by M., and the amount of KRW 10 million stated in No. 28 shall not have been received from Q (the Defendant recognized the amount of KRW 20 million stated in No. 25, and the appeal shall not be induced).

3) The judgment of the court below

A) Part 26 of the crime sight table 26

The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, found based on evidence duly admitted and investigated;

In other words, the Defendant requested Q Q to provide the Defendant’s vehicle purchase funds to use the Defendant’s wife through M, and Q also seems to have paid KRW 30 million in cash with the Defendant’s knowledge of such use points, and in fact, around May 18, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle purchase and sale in the Defendant’s name was recorded, and the said KRW 30 million was deemed to have been used for the purchase price of the said vehicle. In full view of the fact that Q would have been used for the said vehicle purchase price, the Defendant found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds that: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle purchase funds to use the Defendant’s wife around April 26, 2016 only did not fall under money objectively anticipated to be used for the Defendant’s political activities; (b) it is difficult to view it as money and valuables provided for political activities; and (c) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received political funds of KRW 30 million from Q.

B) Part 27 of the crime sight table 27

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) M was found in the office of Q Q in May 2016, and received KRW 10 million in cash as the Defendant’s vehicle price; (b) Q did not confirm whether it was delivered to the Defendant; and (c) M stated that the Defendant sent the Defendant the above KRW 10 million to the Defendant; (d) as seen earlier, it is difficult to believe that M’s statement on the delivered part is difficult to believe, it was difficult to exclude the possibility of not delivering KRW 10 million to the Defendant; and even if the above KRW 10 million was paid as the Defendant’s vehicle purchase fund, it is difficult to view it as political funds under the Political Funds Act, as seen earlier.

C) Part 28 of the list of crimes

The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, found based on evidence duly admitted and investigated;

① On the other hand, Q consistently stated that “The Defendant had no motive to make a false statement on the grounds that it was difficult for the Defendant to take into account the telephone before July 21, 201,” Q stated that “The Defendant directly opened the office of KRW 10 million to the Defendant,” and stated “14:0 A member office in Q as of June 21, 2016,” the vehicle entrance details of A Q’s National Assembly, correspond to this, and ③ A Q’s National Assembly entrance details of A Q’s National Assembly office building do not have any record of entry into the Defendant or other member office on June 21, 2016 (Evidence No. 2686), but Q stated that Q entered another place in the National Assembly’s office building at the time of the lower court’s trial and stated that Q fell short of the credibility of Q’s entry into the National Assembly’s office building at the time of the lower court. As such, it acknowledged the Defendant’s cash statement from Q 180,000 won.

4) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine by the Defendant and the

B) However, with regard to the list 26 and 27 of the crime day list, the following amounts are attached to the money that the Defendant’s wife uses as a gold for the purchase of vehicles. Political funds prohibited by the Political Funds Act refer to all the money, etc. provided to persons who engage in political activities for political activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9866, Jun. 26, 2014). Whether the money and valuables received are “political funds” or not depends on whether the money and valuables are provided for "political activities" or not, and the political activities refer to the activities of exercising power and power over the acquisition and maintenance of power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). Therefore, if a person engaged in political activities receives money and valuables for political activities, not for political activities, the rate of violation of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2727, Feb.

In the event of receiving a subsidy for the purchase price of vehicles to be used by the defendant, it is difficult to conclude that such money and valuables are provided for the political activities of the defendant as long as the money and valuables provided by A Q are specified and paid as the purchase price of vehicles to be used by the defendant's wife as stated by the court below.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the prosecutor's appeal concerning the part of the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the Political Funds Act No. 21 as stated in the list of crimes is well-grounded, and since this part of the judgment of the court below and the guilty part of the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained (including the part concerning the crime of non-guilty existence). The part concerning the violation of the Political Funds Act as stated in Table 21 as stated in the list of crimes among the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is reversed and the guilty part of the judgment of the court below (including the part concerning the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below) is reversed and decided as follows through pleadings.

[Judgment of the court below] Summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is added to the facts charged as to the violation of the Political Funds Act No. 21 of the List of Offenses Act, and the facts charged are altered as follows:

The facts of each crime in Paragraph 3 of the judgment below are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for adding each legal statement of M and Z of the witness of the party in the evidence.

As to the violation of the Political Funds Act relating to the OZ:

The judgment of the court below is changed to "as shown in the table 1 to 5 of the list of crimes in the annexed sheet 3 through 7" in Forms 1 and 2 of the 7 of the judgment of the court below (the judgment of the court below indicated the facts constituting the violation of the Political Funds Act in the annexed sheet 1 and the facts charged in the annexed sheet 2, but the facts charged and facts charged are integrated as one of the annexed list of crimes).

○ The seventh (7) of the judgment of the court below

"The defendant received 30 million won in cash from AI as a political support in a restaurant among "AH in AG" around May 2013, as well as from the time to June 2016, the defendant received 471 million won in total from 18 persons in cash in terms of election funds and political support for 32 times, as described in attached Table 1 6 through 15, and 18 to 39."

From May 2013 to June 2016, "the defendant was delivered KRW 30 million in cash from AI as a political support in a restaurant among "AH in AG" and the defendant was changed from 9 to 18, 21 through 25, and 28 to 45 on 33 occasions from 18 persons in total to 33 occasions as shown in [Attachment Table No. 9 to 18, 21 through 25, and 28 to 2016, respectively."

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), Articles 131(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) of the Criminal Act, Articles 45(2)5 and 32 of the Political Funds Act (joint Imposition of fines pursuant to Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (Joint Imposition of Political Funds and Political Funds, and 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 shall be deemed concurrent crimes for each penalty prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the penalty shall be aggregated to the extent that the maximum amount of two crimes is aggregated).

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

The latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act, Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act [Calculation of Amount of Additional Collection] 692,00,000 won = 66,000 won + 20,000 won + 606,000,000 won + 606,000,000 won for a bribe in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery): 66,00,000 won for a bribe received (i.e., 50,000 won) (i., the base rate of transaction 1,320,000 won/L) as of July 17, 2018, which is close to the date of adjudication of X1

(b) Illegal disposition after accepting a bribe: 20,000,000 won for a bribe received; each violation of the Political Funds Act: 606,00,000 won for a political fund received (=a total of 1.16 billion won for a political fund received - a return to Z).

1. Order of provisional payment;

1. Reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Imprisonment for 7 years to 45 years and fine 122,218,00 won to 405,545,001); 2. The scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (limited to imprisonment)

(a) Crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and illegal action after bribery;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 4 (not less than 50 million won but less than 100 million won) and 6

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravated Action: Improper Action related to Acceptance of Bribery

[Scope of Recommendation] 6 years to 8 years (Aggravated Field)

(b) Offenses of each political fund: The sentencing criteria shall not be set. The scope of final sentences due to the increase of majority offenders: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 7 years and not less than 3);

3. As a representative of the people elected by the vote of the people, a member of the National Assembly is in a position to prevent the exercise of power such as legislative power by the people. Accordingly, a member of the National Assembly has good morality and personality, and should be honest and fair above all, and should be honest and fair. However, even short, the defendant was unable to do so.

The Defendant received a large amount of bribe in return for an illegal solicitation in relation to his/her duties. When the amount received is converted into Korean currency, it exceeds KRW 80 million. In addition, the Defendant did not exercise any undue influence for the benefit of the bribe payer to the public and the public and other institutions affiliated with the standing committee under its jurisdiction by taking advantage of the authority and status as a member of the National Assembly. The Defendant’s exercise any undue influence on the benefit of the bribe payer. It is a small value of the first category of integrity and fairness

As a result, the Defendant illegally received large amounts of political funds from the candidates in relation to the official nomination of local elections, with respect to the candidate of a political party to which he/she belongs. The sum of the amounts received is large to KRW 625 million. Such an act is likely to undermine the fairness and transparency of recommending candidates for public office, distort the process of recommending candidates, and cause risks that may occur in a situation similar to the official nomination by having those who are not equipped with the ability and qualities decided as a candidate for public office. The act of the Defendant seriously damaged the soundness of the electoral system and the political party system, which is the foundation of representative democracy, and the people’s trust. If a bribe is to take part in the duties, the amount of official contribution may be deemed to be a strike of position.

In addition, the Defendant received a large amount of political funds from a large number of people for a long time.hhh, the Defendant received money nearest to KRW 500 million. It cannot be said that it goes against the purpose of legislation of the Political Funds Act to ensure the sound development of democratic politics by securing transparency of political funds and preventing irregularities related to political funds.

It is more broad and honorary to die with thirster than committing an unlawful act. In light of the content and seriousness of the act, illegality and possibility of criticism of the defendant, it is inevitable to hold the defendant accountable for the act, and it is also a way that it corresponds to justice.

Even though the court below did not have any circumstances to consider the defendant, it is because the court below was not able to strictly hold the defendant responsible for the defendant's act.

In this respect, since the sentencing of the court below is determined to be sufficiently acceptable, it is not clear that the defendant's health condition or the circumstances and conditions of various band-and-bebsing measures are considered, but it is inevitable that the defendant should be sentenced to the same punishment as the court below. Unlike the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of "the part that he received KRW 10 million from AC on June 14, 2014," but it does not necessarily mean that the defendant is more severe punishment than the court below. For this reason, the court below shall determine the punishment like the order in light of a comprehensive consideration of various conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case.

The acquittal portion

1. The summary of the charge on the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the above 2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2. the defendant received money in excess of 50,000 U.S. dollars from J under the pretext of the contract for construction. Thus, the defendant is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found that the defendant was guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by giving and receiving 50,000 U.S. dollars as stated in the above charge, the defendant is not guilty.

2. Determination on the violation of some of AI-related Political Funds Act

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant received cash 20 million won, 20 million won, 20 million won, and 20 million won from AI as political support money, respectively, as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 13, 15, and 18.

As examined in the above 2. D. 3 and 4, the facts charged in this part constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime with regard to giving and receiving of political funds to the extent of each of the above amounts, and thus, a not-guilty verdict shall be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of a violation of each of the Political Funds Act with regard to giving and receiving of political funds worth KRW 10 million,5 million, and KRW 10 million, which are included in each of the above facts charged, as stated in the above facts charged, a separate judgment shall not be rendered.

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judge Kang Jin-hun

If 122,218,00 won to 305,545,000 won, or if 122,218,000 won to 250,000 won to 100,000 won, and the fine for the crime of illegal action after the acceptance of the bribe is imposed.

If concurrent crimes are aggravated within the scope of the total sum of KRW 40 million to KRW 100 million and the total amount of both crimes, the scope of punishment by a fine against the accused under the law shall be limited.

from 122,218,00 to 405,545,00 won.

2) The sentencing criteria are to determine the type of bribe crime on the basis of the sum of the amount of bribe.

3) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery and Improper Action after Bribery) whose sentencing criteria are set, and each political whose sentencing criteria are not set.

Since a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article

Only the lower limit of the crime is applicable, but the lower limit of the recommended sentencing criteria is lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law, and ultimately, according to the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law.

Berne.