B. Violation of the Political Funds Act

2.(b) BJ 75.FR

3.(a) C South 65.Woo

변호사 ##(피고인 B, C를 위하여)

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

2.5 million won shall be additionally collected from Defendant C.

To Defendant A and B, an amount equivalent to the above fine, and an amount equivalent to the above fine and the additional charge shall be ordered to Defendant C, respectively.

Defendant A is a person who was elected from the 7th election district of the Ulsan-gu Council member of the Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council to be a candidate for AA; Defendant B was a person who was a person in charge of the foregoing A from April 16, 2018 to July 13, 2018; Defendant C was a person who was an election campaign manager of the above A from April 4, 2018 to June 12, 2018; and D is the spouse of Defendant A.

1. Defendant A

A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to excessive election expenses;

The candidate and the person in charge of accounting of an election for public office shall not disburse election expenses in excess of 1/200 of the restricted amount of election expenses calculated and announced publicly by the constituency election commission in accordance with the provision for the calculation of the proportional amount of election expenses by election. On June 13, 2018, the restricted amount of election expenses for the election of 70,000 won nationwide local council members, which was enforced on June 13, 2018. The Defendant remitted the total amount of election expenses spent on May 30, 2018 to 36,703,210 won (29,025,690 won as election expenses reported in an accounting report + 7,677.520 won as election expenses out of the amount reported as election expenses in an accounting report). The Defendant remitted the fixed amount of election expenses to 14,23,000 won as election expenses, which was already determined by the production, etc. of election campaign bulletins, to 361,50,000 won under the pretext of 218.

B. Violation of the Public Official Election Act under the provision of extra-court allowances

Except for the cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person shall offer money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, or express an intention to offer such money, valuables, or other benefits, or request, request, or

On June 27, 2018, the Defendant: (i) around 14:42, the foregoing C. (Omission). On June 27, 2018, the election campaign manager, accounting, and the chief of the office have been present. It was asked with the thickness of the National Assembly members. In mind, I think that the National Assembly members have come to think once again and paid monetary compensation, and I have come to know that the Council members had been in different work and loyalty. I have been asked to deposit by the gold Day (29 days). (ii) on June 16:18, 2018, the Defendant provided D’s corporate bank account (530**1036) through D’s spouse, *103*106) through D’s new bank account (*1036) in C’s account (*10136). The Defendant provided legal allowances in relation to election campaign.

1) A person who is not the person in charge of accounting of the election expenses shall not receive or disburse the election expenses, and shall not receive or disburse the election expenses without going through the reported deposit account.

The Defendant, via the foregoing D, remitted KRW 2,50,00,00 to the E Enterprise Bank Account (530**********103***)’s new bank account (103****0136) from the E Enterprise Bank Account (530**) other than the deposit account reported on June 1, 2018 to the five-month allowance, 2,30,000 won under the same name as the Agricultural Cooperatives Account (815********614) in the same day from the same day, and around June 29, 2018 as D’s Enterprise Bank Account (530**2021) with C’s new bank account (1103*****0136) in an extra-court bank account (103**0136). As a result, the Defendant did not have any deposit account reported, and thus, did not have any election expenses.

2) A person who is not a person in charge of accounting in the portion of the disbursement of political funds that are not election expenses shall not receive and disburse political funds, and shall not receive and disburse political funds without going through the reported deposit account.

Nevertheless, on July 3, 2018, the Defendant transferred KRW 2 million from D Enterprise Bank Account (530*******2021) to B’s Agricultural Bank Account (815***614) other than the deposit account reported through D, as benefits, around July 3, 2018.

Accordingly, the defendant did not go through a deposit account reported even if he is not a person in charge of accounting, but spent 2 million won of political funds.

2. Defendant B

A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

The candidate and accountant in charge of the election for public office shall not disburse the election expenses in excess of 1/200 of the restricted amount of election expenses calculated and publicly notified by the constituency election commission according to the calculation regulations for the amount of election expenses for each election, and the restricted amount of election expenses for the national and local council members held on June 13, 2018 are 41 million won.

The Defendant: (a) confirmed that KRW 2.4 million was not election expenses in an accounting report reported to the Ulsan-gu Election Commission; (b) paid KRW 37,96,411 out of KRW 40,39,411; (c) paid KRW 9,966,318 out of KRW 21,553,521; (d) paid KRW 9,966,318 as election expenses, such as the cost of purchasing a candidate’s electoral store; and (e) remitted KRW 80,000,000 to △△△ Telecom through the foregoing Do around June 4, 2018; and (e) remitted KRW 600,000 to △△ Telecom under the same name as of June 7, 2018; and (e) disbursed KRW 1,400,000 through an unreported account.

Ultimately, from April 6, 2018 to June 28, 2018, the Defendant spent election expenses exceeding KRW 49,362,729 ( KRW 40,396,411 - KRW 2.400,000 + KRW 9,966,318 + KRW 1.40,000) with election expenses, in excess of KRW 41,000 to KRW 8,362,729.

(b) Violation of the Political Funds Act;

1) No person in charge of the omission of election expenses shall fail to make an accounting report on the election expenses without justifiable grounds, or make a false entry, forge, alter, or omit it.

On July 3, 2018, the Defendant made an accounting report to the Ulsan-gu Election Commission. On June 1, 2018, the Defendant omitted the total of KRW 3,430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from May 1, 2018, which was remitted to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, and KRW 2,30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won were paid for each of the election campaign deposited to ○ Telecom on June 4, 2018, and

2) The person in charge of accounting who has not entered the account books shall not keep or enter the account books in relation to the election expenses, or shall not make false statements, forge, or alter them.

On July 3, 2018, the Defendant made an accounting report to the Ulsan-gu Election Commission located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do on July 3, 2018, and disbursed KRW 3,430,000 for election expenses as stated in the preceding paragraph, but did not enter them in the accounting book.

Accordingly, the defendant did not enter an account book in relation to election expenses.

3) When a person in charge of accounting who has not submitted documentary evidence receives and disburses political funds, he/she shall obtain receipts and other documentary evidence.

Nevertheless, as described in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant did not have received receipts and other evidential documents while paying the total amount of 3.43 million won for political funds.

3. Defendant C’s violation of the Public Official Election Act

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

On June 29, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 2,50,000,00 as indicated in Article 1-1(b)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Defendant received extra-legal allowances in relation to an election campaign.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant A: Articles 258(1)1 and 122 of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 230(2) and 230(1)4, and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of extra-court allowances by a candidate); Articles 49(2)3 and 36(1) of the Political Funds Act (the provision of extra-court allowances by a candidate); Articles 49(2)3 and 36(2) of the Political Funds Act (the provision of election expenses not taken by a person in charge of accounting); Articles 49(2)3, 36(2) (the provision of expenses not taken by a reported deposit account) of the Political Funds Act; Articles 47(1)8 and 36(1) of the Political Funds Act (the provision of expenses not taken by a person in charge of accounting); Articles 47(1)9 and 36(2) of the Political Funds Act (the provision of expenses not taken by a person in charge of accounting); Articles 36(2)

B. Defendant B: Articles 258(1)1 and 122 of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 49(1) and 40(1) of the Political Funds Act; Articles 49(2)5 and 37(1) of the Political Funds Act; Articles 49(2)5 and 37(1) of the Political Funds Act; Articles 47(1)10 and 39(1) of the Political Funds Act; Articles 47(1)10 and 39(a) of the Political Funds Act

C. Defendant C: Article 230(1)7 and 4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 135(3) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials; Article 135(1)1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials

(a) Defendant A: Article 18(3), (1)3, and (2) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(1)3 and (2) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(1) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(1) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(1) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(1) of the Public Official Election Act] and Article 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(2) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(1) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 1(1) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 1(1) of the Public Official Election Act] and Article 18(1) of the Political Funds Act [Article 18(1) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 18(2) of the Public Official Election Act and Article 263(1) and (2) [Article 263(2) of the Political Funds Act [Article 2(2) of the Public Official Election Act];

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: Violation of the former part of Articles 37, 38(1)2, and 50 (Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to excessive disbursement of election expenses, violation of the Public Official Election Act due to provision of extra-court allowances by candidates, violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of election expenses not by persons in charge of accounting, violation of each political fund due to the disbursement of election expenses not by persons in charge of accounting, and violation of each political fund due to the disbursement of election expenses not by the reported deposit account, among the crimes of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the disbursement of extra-court allowances by candidates with the largest punishment, among the concurrent crimes of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of extra-court allowances by candidates, violation of the Political Funds Act due to extra-election expenses not by persons in charge of accounting

In addition to election expenses, the amount of concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of political funds other than election expenses

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (trades of violating the Public Official Election Act and those of violating the Political Funds Act due to omission of election expenses, and the degree of crimes is more severe, and concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Public Official Election Act)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Additional collection:

Defendant C: proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act [the Defendant C transferred money received from Defendant A to his own other account and then returned it to Defendant A thereafter, and additional collection is made from Defendant C (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2871, Feb. 14, 1984; 85Do1350, Sept. 10, 1985)];

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for conviction

1. Defendant A

A. Whether the Defendant was unaware of the status exceeding the restricted amount of election expenses at the time on June 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be recognized that the Defendant, as of June 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018, recognized that the amount limited to election expenses exceeds 1/200,000,000 won at least as of June 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018, and paid election expenses.

1) The Defendant, who was in charge of accounting, concurrently served as the person in charge of accounting before becoming the person in charge of accounting, was deemed to have been fully aware of the restricted amount of election expenses as the candidate in charge of public office, and the Defendant paid attention to B, from the time of performing duties as the person in charge of accounting, that he should not go beyond 41 million won of the restricted amount of election expenses.

2) 2018. 5. 30. 당시 이미 정치자금지출부 상 지출된 선거비용이 약 2,900만 원에 이르렀고 2018. 5. 초순경 ▲▲애드와 체결한 계약에 따라 향후 최소 약 1,400만 원의 지출이 예정되어 있었다.

3) From May 31, 2018 to June 7, 2018, the election campaign commencing date under the accounting report submitted by Defendant’s side, the details of election expenses disbursement were not transferred. During the foregoing period, each of the allowances was paid from the unreported account as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and text messages were paid, and the election expenses were appropriated from the account that is not the political fund account.

4) B, a person in charge of accounting of the Defendant, was well aware of an excess of the restricted amount of election expenses, and during the investigation process, he stated to the effect that “I inevitably discussed expenses such as name cards, production expenses, banner, etc., for which the estimate was determined, although I would not have been able to do so.” The Defendant’s election campaign manager, who was an election campaign manager, was aware of an excess of the restricted amount of election expenses, and C sent text messages for the Defendant’s publicity by modifying it to a single text instead of a long door.

5) On June 1, 2018, the Defendant’s wife stated to the effect that, in the course of investigation, it was insufficient to have written the money in which the “plan was written.” As at the time of the investigation, there was a talk that there was a lack of money in the political fund account, and the balance in the political fund account exceeded KRW 10 million, but it was about KRW 10 million.

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court whether the Defendant’s wife D paid the Defendant’s allowance to B and C on May 2018, 2018, it can be recognized that D transferred money to B and C by ordering the Defendant to remit money to B and C as of June 1, 2018.

1) B worked for the first monthly wage of KRW 1.5 million and KRW 5 million per week, and around May 2018, B demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 2.30,000 ( KRW 70,000) allowances to the Defendant around May 2018, knowing that the Defendant may receive KRW 50,000 per day and KRW 20,00 per week due to excessive work hours, and worked for a total of 29 days, including the attendance at the weekend.

2) A around May 31, 2018, around May 31, 2018, C submitted to the Defendant a written request to the Defendant for allowances related to election affairs, which stated B’s five-month allowances as KRW 2.30,000,00,000, and that this Defendant would know.

3) However, as the Defendant expressed his intention that it is difficult to change the initial agreement with respect to the above B’s request, he would not retire from office on June 1, 2018, and C did not attend the morning, and thereafter C did not work for the Defendant, and thereafter, C transferred the above five-month allowances from the Dong E account of D.

4) At the time of the investigation by the election commission, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “B shall deposit to the Defendant who did not work at work at the election commission.” The Defendant paid allowances to the above B from the account of E because he did not have any money, and was aware that the said allowances were to be paid from the political fund account, and later, he did not go beyond the match. On June 29, 2018, the Defendant did not reverse each of the above instructions to the effect that “B paid KRW 2.5 million from the D account to the Defendant on July 3, 2018, and KRW 2,00,000,000,000 paid from the D account to the Defendant.” However, the Defendant did not reverse each of the above instructions to the effect that each of the above notifications confirmed on the following day, and each of the aforementioned transfers was not known.

5) B confirmed that the above five-month allowance was deposited from E, not from the political fund account, and pointed out this point, the Defendant respondeded to the purport that “the Defendant asked to the wife because there is no money,” and that he again made a statement that he would not be required to pay for the political fund account. On June 29, 2018, the Defendant sent 2.5 million won from D account to C from June 29, 2018, which was known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, is not an election expense. In light of the following circumstances, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant sent money to C through Ma’s account as of June 29, 2018, which was paid for the election campaign not for the settlement of remaining business but for the election period.

1) Around June 27, 2018, around 14:42, 2018, C sent a text message to the Defendant to the effect that “A” (C) the election campaign manager (hereinafter “C”) was a member of the election campaign manager. Pursuant to the foregoing, C sent a text message to the effect that: (a) the sports team and the low-income group were performing other duties; and (b) the Defendant sent a text message to the effect that “the deposit was requested by June 29, 2018; and (c) the Defendant sent the account number of C as text message to C; and (c) thereafter, D remitted KRW 2.5 million to C.

2) At the time of investigation by the election commission, the Defendant expressed to the effect that, rather than as a price for arranging offices after the election, the Defendant was able to take a large amount of money during the election period, and that, upon paying the said money, C was able to audit the Defendant after C, and that, after the investigation by the election commission, C was said to have returned the said KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant.

3) At the time of investigation by the election commission, D also stated to the effect that “the defendant sent money as C received.” At the time of investigation by the judicial police officer, D also stated to the effect that “the telephone should have to pay and pay the money to B from outside at the time of the investigation by the judicial police officer,” not only the cost for duties after the election but also the cost for receiving money during the election campaign period.”

4) After the election, B worked daily and performed an accounting report for compensating for election expenses. However, C appears to have worked for more than three to four days and worked for more than three to four days, and it does not seem that it performed the work to the extent that it received the remaining business payment from the Defendant.

5) On June 13, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 1,170,00 to C with June 13, 2018, which appears to have been paid allowances for work from June 1, 2018 to June 12, 2018, and it is difficult to believe that the Defendant paid KRW 2,50,000 as allowances for remaining business with regard to the performance of the above duties on June 29, 2018 (the Defendant’s defense counsel appears to have not been aware of the illegality of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime. However, according to the above evidence, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have been aware of the illegality of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, and even if the Defendant did not have been aware of the illegality of domestic affairs, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was illegal if the Defendant exercised his care, and there was no reason to avoid the demand by C, and therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have any justifiable reason under Article 16 of the Criminal Act).

2. Defendant B

A. Summary of Defendant B’s defense counsel’s assertion

With respect to the excessive disbursement of election expenses, the Defendant first taken charge of the accountant in charge of an election for public office and did not know that the expenses paid prior to the election period are included in the election expenses.

Since the above act was mistaken for not committing a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes, there was no perception of illegality.

B. Specific determination

1) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding." It does not mean a simple legal site, but it means that it shall not be punishable if there is a justifiable ground in misunderstanding that one's own act constitutes a crime, although it is generally a crime, it is erroneous that it does not constitute a crime as permitted by the Acts and subordinate statutes in his own special circumstances, and it does not constitute a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592, Sept.

2) In light of such legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it is difficult to deem that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the Defendant’s act was not a crime under the law, and there was no perception of illegality.

A) The fact that the Defendant first informed the person in charge of accounting of an election for public office does not constitute justifiable grounds to believe that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime under the law. Rather, even though the Defendant, as a person in charge of accounting, should have made efforts to comply with the Public Official Election Act by using he/she, did not participate in political funds accounting education on May 14, 2018.

B) If the Defendant asked the competent election commission about whether the scope of election expenses include expenses used prior to the election campaign period, or made efforts to investigate whether such expenses are included, it could have been easily known. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not ask the competent election commission, etc. about whether the scope of election expenses include expenses used prior to the election campaign period, and did not think that the amount used prior to the election campaign period was election expenses.

3. Defendant C

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it can be recognized that the Defendant received money through A’s account on June 29, 2018 from the Defendant to receive payment for an election campaign during the election period, not the cost for arranging remaining business after the election.

1) On June 27, 2018, at least 14:42, the Defendant: (a) sent a text message to A to the effect that the election campaign manager (the Defendant) was a member; (b) monetary compensation was paid; and (c) I believed that the Plaintiff was performing other duties and had loyalty; (d) on June 29, 2018, A sent a text message to the effect that “the deposit was requested by June 29, 2018; and (b) A sent KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant through his bank account; and (c) A sent money to the effect that “the Defendant was sent money to the election campaign period rather than the price for organization at the time of the election campaign,” rather than the price for organization at the election campaign office; and (d) there was a lot of comments to the effect that the said money was paid to A after the election campaign, and that there was no dispute between A and the Defendant at the election campaign commission and the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it should have been returned money to A.

4) After the election, B worked daily and performed an accounting report for compensating for election expenses. However, the Defendant appears to have worked for more than three to four days and arranged the period, returned sirens, removed posters, etc. inside the office, and does not seem to have performed the work to the extent that A received the remaining work payment.

5) On June 13, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 1,170,00 as the monthly allowance from A on June 13, 2018. This appears to have received allowances for service from June 1, 2018 to June 12, 2018, and it is difficult to believe that the Defendant received KRW 2,50,000,00 as the remaining business amount as the payment for the remaining business with regard to the performance of the aforementioned duties on June 29, 2018.

6) Upon the issue of the instant case and the investigation of the Election Commission began around July 2018, the Defendant returned the above KRW 2.5 million to A around August 6, 2018. However, if the above KRW 2.5 million were to be the remaining business adjustment salary, there seems to be no need to return the excess election expenses under the Public Official Election Act. If the Defendant intended to return the remaining business due to the excessive election expenses under the Public Official Election Act, the above KRW 2.5 million and the above KRW 1.170,000 were to have been returned together, but the Defendant did not do so (on the other hand, B, who was in charge of the accounting work conducted for the purpose of claiming the amount of election expenses after the election, received KRW 2 million from the Defendant as the remaining business adjustment salary, and after the case, 90,000,0000,000,0000,000,000 were deducted from the excessive election expenses).

B. The defendant sent text messages to the effect that it is possible to properly claim the amount of remaining business, and that the above act of receiving text messages was erroneous that it did not constitute a crime under the law, and that there was no awareness of illegality. However, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that the act of misunderstanding that the act of misunderstanding was not a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a reasonable ground for misunderstanding" does not mean a simple legal ground, but it is generally an offense, but it is generally an act permitted under the law, in her special circumstances, but it does not constitute a crime if misunderstanding that there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4592, Sept. 29, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s receipt of the above KRW 2.5 million was shown in consideration of election campaign and did not perform business affairs to the extent that it was paid for the remaining business affairs, but did not perform business affairs to the extent that it was paid for the remaining business affairs, and even if the Defendant performed such business affairs as above, he did not conduct any act such as questioning or verifying to the election commission, even though he could have been easily known if he had been aware of it by making an inquiry or making an effort to pay for the remaining business affairs, it was difficult for the Defendant to believe that his act was not a crime under the law, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that there was any justifiable reason to believe that there was no awareness of illegality.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

1) The portion of each violation of the Political Funds Act due to the violation of each Public Official Election Act, the violation of each Political Fund due to the disbursement of election expenses not carried out by a person in charge of accounting, and the violation of each political fund due to the disbursement of election expenses not carried out in the reported deposit account: 50,000 won

2) The violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of political funds, other than election expenses, by a person in charge of accounting, and the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of political funds, other than election expenses, reported in the deposit account: 50,000 won to 6 million won.

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Part of each violation of the Political Funds Act due to the violation of each Public Official Election Act, the violation of each Political Fund Act due to the disbursement of election expenses not by a person in charge of accounting, and the violation of each Political Fund Act due to the disbursement of

A) Since the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act and the crime of violation of the remaining crimes against which the sentencing guidelines have not been set due to the provision of extra-court allowances by the candidates whose sentencing guidelines are set as follows are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit of the sentencing range shall be the lower limit of the sentencing range on the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act through the provision of extra-court allowances by

(b) Purchase of election crimes and inducement for understanding of interests [type 3]. General purchase [special-purpose persons] by candidates, etc. (type 3] mitigated elements: Provision or acceptance of minor money, goods, etc. at the cost of actual expenses compensation or consolation level for election campaigns;

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Fines 1.5 million won to seven million won

2) Part concerning the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of political funds, other than election expenses, not by a person in charge of accounting, and the violation of the Political Funds Act due to disbursement of political funds other than election expenses reported.

Since the sentencing criteria are not set for each of the above crimes, the sentencing criteria are not applied.

1) The portion of each violation of the Political Funds Act due to the violation of each Public Official Election Act, the violation of each Political Fund due to the disbursement of election expenses not by a person in charge of accounting, and the violation of each political fund due to the disbursement of election expenses not via the reported deposit account: 4 million

2) The violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of political funds, other than election expenses, by a person in charge of accounting, and the violation of the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of political funds, other than election expenses reported in the deposit account: 60,000 won

3) The Defendant, as a candidate for the Ulsan-gu National Assembly member, disbursed election expenses exceeding KRW 41 million to KRW 7,030,000 from KRW 41,00 to KRW 7030,000,000,000,000,000 for election expenses through a deposit account without being reported by a person in charge of accounting. This is an act that damages the purpose of legislation of the Public Official Election Act, which strictly regulates the excessive election expenses in order to ensure transparency in election expenses and political funds in order to ensure transparency in election expenses and prevent any malpractice related thereto, and the purpose of legislation of the Political Funds Act which strictly limits the methods of revenue and expenditure of political funds outside election expenses. An offense involving election expenses including the excessive election expenses committed by the Defendant causes unnecessary election campaigns, affects elections, and affects elections, thereby creating an environment favorable to candidates with an economic ability, and ultimately, causes damage to the fundamental order of free democracy election crimes, taking into account the intention of the citizens and the electors and the elector’s resolution on election campaign.

However, considering the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime.

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

1) A violation of the Public Official Election Act and a violation of the Political Funds Act due to the omission of election expenses: Fines of KRW 50,000 to KRW 30 million

2) Violation of the Political Funds Act due to failure in accounting books: Fines of 50,000 to 4 million won;

3) Violation of the Political Funds Act due to the failure to provide documentary evidence: Fine of KRW 50,00 to KRW 4 million

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing guidelines are not set for each of the crimes in this case.The sentencing guidelines are not set.

1. Violation of the Political Funds Act due to the omission of election expenses and the violation of the Political Funds Act: Fines of 3 million won: 2) Violation of the Political Funds Act due to the omission of accounting books: Fines of 300,000 won;

3) Violation of the Political Funds Act due to the failure to provide documentary evidence: Fines of 200,000 won

4) The Defendant, a person in charge of accounting of the election campaign office A, disbursed the election expenses exceeding KRW 41 million to KRW 8,362,729 with respect to the election campaign of the Defendant A, omitted in the accounting report of KRW 3,430,000 for the election expenses, omitted in the accounting report, omitted in the accounting report, and did not provide documentary evidence of the said money, which is political funds.

An election campaign related to election expenses, including excessive election expenses, by inducing unnecessary election campaigns and influencing elections, ultimately creating an environment favorable to a candidate with greater economic ability.In addition, an election campaign should be the subject of the resolution on the pledge policy for the people and electors. An election campaign is distorted by the will of the people and electors, impairing the trust of the people and the elector, thereby impairing the free democratic fundamental order. Considering the seriousness of such election campaign, the responsibility for the crime committed by the defendant is heavy.

However, the Defendant does not seem to have committed a crime in order to gain personal economic or political benefits, and appears to have performed duties for election as an accountant in charge of the election campaign office A. Considering the fact that there was no previous record of punishment, etc., the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as indicated in the Disposition, shall be determined by taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.

3. Defendant C

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 30 million won; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Purchase of Election Crimes and Guidance for Understanding] General Purchase

[Special Convicts] Reduction element: Where money or other valuables or benefits provided or received are insignificant;

[Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Decision of a fine of KRW 1 million to KRW 5 million. The Defendant, who is an election campaign manager of the original election campaign office of KRW 3 million, demanded extra-court allowances in relation to the election campaign of KRW 3 million, and received KRW 2.5 million from A.

The crime committed by the accused ultimately leads to the fairness of election by creating an environment favorable to the candidate with more economic ability. In addition, election should be the subject of the resolution on the pledge and policy for the citizens and the electors. Election crimes distort the will of the people and the electors, impair the trust of the people in the election system itself and the people, and ultimately undermine the liberal democratic fundamental order. Considering the seriousness of such election crimes, the responsibility for the crime committed by the accused is heavy. However, in light of the importance of the above election crimes, it is difficult to say that the profit gained by the defendant is considerable, the above amount has been returned during the investigation process of this case, the fact that the defendant has no criminal power exceeding the fine, etc., and the sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and behavior, environment, family relations, motive and circumstances after the crime, etc.

Judges Kim Gung-sung

On the present date of judge

Since it is judged that it does not affect the right of defense of ancient C, it is revised ex officio.