Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the obstruction of business, the violation of trust by Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 are acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced.

All of the appeals filed by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The point of taking property in breach of trust from Nonindicted 1 (Person outside the Public Prosecution)

(1) On April 11, 2015, KRW 30 million

Non-Indicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1): there was no special personal exchange for 30 years between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s election campaign, and Defendant 1’s failure to participate in the official personnel, and thus, did not have any commercial resistance to recommend the position of representative director of Non-Indicted 2 Co. 2 (hereinafter “Non-Indicted 2”). Since Non-Indicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) left shopping bags without notifying Defendant 1, Defendant 1 left the shopping bags, Defendant 1 was unaware of who left it. Defendant 1 became aware of the fact that Non-Indicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1: Non-Indicted Party 1) received KRW 10 million from Non-Indicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1: Non-Indicted Party 1) on April 29, 2015.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the non-indicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1) received the 30 million won in return for the illegal solicitation that he/she would be appointed to the representative director of the non-indicted 2 company from the non-indicted 1 (the counter-indicted 2).

B. The point of her violation of trust of 10 million won on April 29, 2015

At the time, Nonindicted Company 2’s representative director had already been decided to be selected as a public recruitment position, and on April 29, 2015, Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) reported the content of the appointment as a person in charge of 10 business entities affiliated with the △△△△△○○○ Committee, who was in charge of the 10 business entities affiliated with the △△△△△○○ Committee. Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) made a statement to the effect that the appointment of Nonindicted Party 1 was consistent with Defendant 1 on April 29, 2015, and did not directly request the appointment of Nonindicted Party 2 as the representative director.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which recognized that KRW 10 million received from Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) was property acquired as property acquired as property in breach of trust, has erred in misunderstanding of facts.

Article 26(1) of the Act on the Protection of Property from Property in Breach of Trust on June 4, 2015

After Defendant 2’s request for Nonindicted Party 1’s statement of Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1”): Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that Nonindicted Party 1 was Nonindicted Party 1’s main office: Nonindicted Party 1’s statement and Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that Nonindicted Party 1 would have been rejected on June 4, 2015, there was no reason to give more money than Defendant 2 to Defendant 1. Nonindicted Party 1 (“Nonindicted Party 1”): Nonindicted Party 1’s final statement that Nonindicted Party 1 would not have been sent to Nonindicted Party 1’s representative director after Nonindicted Party 1’s final interview (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1’s final statement”): Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that Nonindicted Party 2 would not have been sent to Nonindicted Party 1’s office: Nonindicted Party 1’s final statement and that Nonindicted Party 2 would have been objectively informed of the intention to appoint Nonindicted Party 1’s representative director on the date of the final interview (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1’s final statement”): Nonindicted Party 1’s final statement that Nonindicted Party 2 would have become final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which recognized the credibility of Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that he provided additional money to Defendant 1 on the last interview day, was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) The point of taking property in breach of trust from Defendant 2

Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 2 gave money to Defendant 1 for the purpose of compensating for election expenses, and that Nonindicted 4 did not make an illegal solicitation. In addition, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 4 stated that Defendant 2 did not have any interview with each other, and Nonindicted 4 stated that Defendant 1 did not deliver an illegal solicitation requesting Defendant 2 to appoint Defendant 2 as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2. Accordingly, there is no illegal solicitation.

In addition, Defendant 1 clearly expressed his first intention to refuse receipt to Defendant 2, and after receipt, he set the time to return to Defendant 2 as a health problem (such as the first round of order) and his duties (the first round of order, etc.). Defendant 2 did not use money brought by Defendant 2 and returned money to Defendant 2 as it is. Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized that Defendant 1 illegally obtained KRW 50 million in return for the illegal solicitation that Defendant 2 would be appointed as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 from Defendant 2, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Defendant 1 did not actively demand the money and valuables to Nonindicted 1 (the person outside the public prosecution) and Defendant 2. Before the commencement of an investigation, Defendant 2 returned all the money and valuables provided by Defendant 2. There was no fact that he had exercised influence to appoint Nonindicted 1 (the person outside the public prosecution) or Defendant 2 as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2. Moreover, there was no criminal history, and there was no history of criminal punishment, and sufficient medical treatment is required because he suffers from severe blood-related diseases due to the age of 78.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant 1 is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

1) Legal principles

Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act provides that an offender or a third party who acts as the offender shall be confiscated and collected, so even if the offender has returned the money to the person who has acquired the property in breach of trust, it shall be interpreted that the person who has received the property in breach of trust shall be collected additionally. In addition, the Supreme Court also ruled that even if the person who received the property in breach of trust has returned the corresponding amount to the provider, it shall not be collected additionally. Accordingly, the amount of KRW 50 million returned by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 shall not be collected from Defendant 2.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which collected the above KRW 50 million from Defendant 2, erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to additional collection.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Defendant 2 had a record of attracting 7,00 members as the head of the △△△△△△ Branch for a period of 10 years, and had been 7,000 persons who were well aware of his duties to become the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2, and the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 was thought to be helpful for the development of Nonindicted Company 2, and did not want to become the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 through money and other valuables provided. Defendant 1 was aware that he was able to compensate for election expenses because he was aware that he had paid a large amount of election expenses at the election of the △△△△△△△△△ branch, and was able to assist in attracting the members of the △△△△△△ branch. Defendant 1 did not explicitly request the appointment of the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 while delivering money to Defendant 1, and eventually, he did not have been appointed as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 through his declaration of conscience and did not actively cooperate with Defendant 2 in the investigation.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against Defendant 2 is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The point of interfering with Defendant 1’s business

The crime of interference with business does not necessarily require that the act of fraud be done directly to the other party to the act of interference with business. Examining Defendant 1’s act in the manner of step-by-step approach by dividing into the act of submitting a written oath, the act of providing money and valuables, and the act of providing money and valuables, Defendant 1’s act is not determined comprehensively. The crime of interference with business may be constituted for the crime of interference with business even in the absence of any provision that directly punishs the act of spreading money and valuables. In the absence of any provision that directly punishs the act of

Nevertheless, only the act of submitting a written oath shall be extracted as a direct deceptive scheme, and the act of Defendant 1 shall be examined by step-by-step approach, and the judgment of the court below that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the obstruction of business should be established only by evaluating the characteristics of this part of the work as

B) The charge of giving property in breach of trust against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

Defendant 1 received an illegal solicitation from Defendant 3, around June 2015, that “The △△△△△△ Council of Korea and China for the promotion of tourism projects linked to the △△△△△ Council of China.” On September 23, 2015, Defendant 1 received an implied request from △△△△△△△△△△△ to promote the said tourism projects as soon as possible.” At the same time, Defendant 1 received property benefits of KRW 400 million, and Defendant 1 was already granted the authority to carry out a new project pursuant to Article 4-2 of the Korean Veterans Association Act even from the moment when Defendant 1 was elected as the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Council on April 35, 2015, thereby promoting this part of tourism projects constitutes another person’s business.

In addition, while Defendant 3 discussed the exchange between Nonindicted 5 and △△△△△ Council and △△△ Council in Do, Defendant 3 suggested this part of the tourism business as one of the profit-making business, and offered it to Defendant 1. Therefore, the above KRW 400 million was paid in return for illegal solicitation.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 is in the position of the administrator of the △△△△ Council because it is difficult to view that Defendant 3 is in the position of the administrator of the △△△△△ Council because it is unclear whether or not the business has been sexual intercourse or has been realized or not, and it does not seem that Defendant 3 actively paid the above money with the first demand or payment in the implementation of this part of the tourism business. Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the KRW 400 million is difficult to be considered

2) Unreasonable sentencing on Defendant 1

The lower court’s sentence against Defendant 1 is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Ex officio determination

The prosecutor shall reverse the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1's acquittal and the part as to Defendant 3 of the charge of obstruction of business, the charge of taking property in breach of trust by Defendant 3, and the charge of the charge against Defendant 3, as stated below (Dao-written judgment). Since this court changed the object of the judgment by granting permission, the prosecutor shall reverse the part as to Defendant 1's acquittal and the charge as to Defendant 3.

B. Judgment on mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion

A) Determination as to the taking of property in breach of trust from Nonindicted 1 (Person outside the Public Prosecution)

(i) Determination as to the receipt of a breach of trust of KRW 30 million on April 11, 2015

㈎ 원심의 판단

For the following reasons, the lower court recognized that Defendant 1 received the illegal solicitation that Defendant 1 would be appointed to the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 from Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) and received KRW 30 million in return for the illegal solicitation.

① At the time of Nonindicted Co. 2’s regular work as the head of Nonindicted Co. 2’s office, Nonindicted Co. 1 (Nonindicted Co. 1) stated that Nonindicted Co. 30 million won should be given to the Chairperson of the △△△△△△△△△ Council in order to serve as the head of the company.

② Around January 2015, Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) did not have personal exchanges with Defendant 1 for 30 years prior to the call again. Around April 10, 2015, at the 35th △△△△△△ Director election (hereinafter “instant election”), Defendant 1’s request to participate in Defendant 1’s election campaign as official personnel, and Defendant 1 did not have a relationship between Defendant 1’s arbitrary appointment of Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2, by refusing to request Defendant 1’s election campaign and having only contact with some of the representatives from special career officers.

③ According to the recording on April 29, 2015 between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 (Person outside the Public Prosecution): Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 (Person outside the Public Prosecution) have already made a conversation on the premise that they had already been given and received shopping bags on the basis of the pending reports on both sides, money and valuables, and Nonindicted Company 2.

④ On April 29, 2015, Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) stated that Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 6, the wife of Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 2: Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 6, the wife of Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 3:00,000,000), was called “three (30,000,000)” from Defendant 1, and that Nonindicted Party 1, the wife of Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 3:0,000,000,000,000) was asked. This is in line with the text message sent to Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 3:0,000) on April 27, 2015.

⑤ Although the cash withdrawal payment submitted by Defendant 1 was indicated as an item of revenue on April 13, 2015, Defendant 1’s arbitrary act without making efforts to verify the provider’s considerable cash of KRW 30 million, which is known to the source, such as the reason, character of the money, and the name, etc., and to find out the fact that it is difficult for Nonindicted 1 (ex officio) to receive money after two days from the date of receipt in light of the general rule of experience, it is difficult to obtain money in light of the general rule of experience. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 (ex officio: Nonparty 1) received money from Defendant 1 (ex officio), Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8 on October 14, 2015 after being investigated by the prosecutor at the same day or the prosecutor at the prosecution, Defendant 1, who was known to have led Nonindicted 8 to receive money from Nonindicted 1 (ex officio: Nonindicted 1) as a donation from Nonindicted 1 (ex officio).

㈏ 당심의 판단

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below and completed the examination of evidence, the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant 1 received 30 million won in return for the illegal solicitation that he would be appointed to the representative director of the non-indicted 2 company from the non-indicted 1 (the non-indicted 1) and received 30 million won in return for the illegal solicitation is just and there is no error of law or of law in the judgment.

Therefore, this part of Defendant 1’s assertion is without merit.

D. Determination as to the violation of trust in the amount of KRW 10 million on April 29, 2015

According to the evidence duly adopted and the examination of evidence, it is recognized that on April 29, 2015, at the house of Defendant 1, Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) had more KRW 10 million (20,000,000,000,000) from Defendant 1’s house, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to leave Nonindicted Company 2 for more than two years, and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 (Nonindicted Party 1,000,000,000,000,000). Accordingly, Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1,000,000,000,000) to question whether there was a problem when conducting the regular business of Nonindicted Party 2, and

According to the above facts, Defendant 1 received KRW 10 million from Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 1) on April 29, 2015, from Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 1) for an illegal solicitation to appoint Nonindicted Party 2 as the representative director of the Nonindicted Company 2, it appears that Defendant 1 received the payment for such illegal solicitation.

Therefore, this part of Defendant 1’s assertion is without merit.

Article 26(1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Property in Breach of Trust on June 4, 2015

㈎ 원심의 판단

For the following reasons, the lower court determined that there was credibility in Nonindicted 1’s statement that Defendant 1 issued additional KRW 20 million to Defendant 1 as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 on the final interview day.

① 1. Nonindicted 1 (Person outside the Public Prosecution: Person outside the Public Prosecution) consistently state how to hold the withdrawn cash on the final interview date, how to enter the place of final interview, and how to deliver cash at any time and in any manner to Defendant 1, and what words are.

② In light of the financial transaction details of Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1): it is confirmed that Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) withdrawn KRW 30 million on the final interview date.

③ The content of text messages sent by Nonindicted 6 to Nonindicted 1 (Person other than the Public Prosecution: Person other than the Public Prosecution) on the final interview is supported by the fact that Nonindicted 1 (Person other than the Public Prosecution) already paid KRW 40 million to the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 at the time of Nonindicted 1’s final interview, providing additional KRW 20 million, and talked about the intention to reduce KRW 60 million to Defendant 1 and received money.

④ As to the circumstances in which additional money was paid on the final interview day, Nonindicted Party 1 (Person other than the Public Prosecution) stated that Nonindicted Party 1 (Person other than the Public Prosecution) heard from Defendant 1 the phrase “the chief of the headquarters, and the president at the last time,” provided Defendant 1 with KRW 50 million, considering that there was a written lawsuit that she provided Defendant 1 with KRW 50,000,000. This is also consistent with the words that Nonindicted Party 9 was written from Nonindicted Party 1 (Person other than the Public Prosecution) at the time.

⑤ On June 2, 2015, Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1”) found Defendant 1’s house to have interviewed the personnel committee. On June 2, 2015, Nonindicted Party 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 1”) found Defendant 1’s house in order to request once again, but at the time, Defendant 1’s wife returned to Defendant 1 due to the relationship with which he was suffering from drinking. On June 3, 2015, the following day after the personnel committee interview, Nonindicted Party 3, a candidate who was supported by Nonindicted Party 2’s representative director, called “the head of △ branch (referring to Defendant 2) from among the persons who met the above interview. This is the same to the extent of 4th degree.” This appears to be the most passive reason for Nonindicted Party 1(Nonindicted Party 1: Nonindicted Party 2) to have interviewed Nonindicted Party 2’s representative director, but it appears that the appointment of Nonindicted Party 2 might be most passive after the personnel committee’s interview.

④ However, it seems that Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) notified Nonindicted Party 10, the head of the personnel affairs division of the △△△△△△ Council, of the fact that he and Nonindicted Party 3 were selected as a final subject of a final interview on June 3, 2015, and that he and Nonindicted Party 3 was expected to be appointed again.

④ In light of the text message sent by Nonindicted 3 to Nonindicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) on June 5, 2015, June 5, 2015, Nonindicted 3, a new wall following the interview, it is difficult to view that the atmosphere at the time of the final interview was the name of Nonindicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) or that Nonindicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 2) was the real representative director of Nonindicted Company 2, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) was the atmosphere in which the appointment of the representative director was confirmed at the time of the final interview. As such, Nonindicted 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) appears to have a motive to pay money and valuables

④ In light of the legal statements made by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 10, Defendant 1 appears to have not immediately moved along with an interviewee after the interview was completed and immediately moved to a subsequent event site after the interview. It cannot be said that Nonindicted 1 (person outside the public prosecution) went first to the interviewee, and it is difficult in light of the circumstances that Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 10’s bombing the plastic bag, which remains in the front room after the interview took place.

9) As to the circumstances in which only KRW 20 million out of KRW 30 million withdrawn on the day of the final interview was provided to Defendant 1, Nonindicted Party 1 (Nonindicted Party 1) has been urged to pay a larger amount of money than KRW 60 million in the annual salary to be received when Nonindicted Party 2 becomes the representative director of the Nonindicted Party 2. In the situation where Nonindicted Party 6, the wife, who is Nonindicted Party 6, demands to pay only KRW 10 million, not KRW 20 million, is forced to pay the amount exceeding the said amount, and the reasons are fully acceptable.

(10) In fact, Defendant 1 appointed Nonindicted Co. 12 as recommended in the Personnel Committee in the order of first priority to the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 11 and the Nonindicted Co. 2’s respective representative directors and interviewers. However, the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 2 was recommended in the second order other than Nonindicted Co. 3 recommended in the Personnel Committee.

㈏ 당심의 판단

The court below duly adopted and completed evidence, i.e., the following circumstances: ① Nonindicted 12 testified at the court below's 20 days before the court below's final interview (the first 20 days after the final interview) stated that "Nonindicted 1 was the representative director of the 20th executive office, including Nonindicted 1 (the second 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 6th 2nd 2nd 2nd 10th 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 6th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3.

Therefore, this part of Defendant 1’s assertion is without merit.

B) Determination as to taking property in breach of trust from Defendant 2

(1) Determination on the existence of an unlawful solicitation

㈎ 원심의 판단

For the following reasons, the lower court recognized that Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million in return for the illegal solicitation that Defendant 2 would be appointed as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2 from Defendant 2.

① Defendant 2, at the ○○○○ Committee’s office around January 2015, took part in Defendant 1’s talk or divided Defendant 1’s talk about election, and Defendant 1, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 9, etc. was at a coffee shop around March 2015. As such, at the time of the instant election, Defendant 2 was not a person who had contributed to election campaign or election of Defendant 1 by participating in Defendant 1’s election campaign by participating in Defendant 1’s election campaign, etc., and Defendant 1 did not have been working for the ○○○○ Committee after Defendant 1 was elected and did not have any relation to allowing Defendant 1 to appoint Defendant 2 as the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2.

② In the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant 2 introduced Nonindicted 4, who was a vice-chairperson of the △△△△△△△△△△ Council and a vice-chairperson of the △△△△△△△△ Council for at least 10 years, and asked Defendant 1 to speak well so that he/she may become the representative director of the Nonindicted Company 2, on two occasions on April 2015, and then asked Defendant 1 to speak, and then asked Nonindicted 4 to talk with Defendant 1. Nonindicted 4 also recognized that he/she received the same request from Defendant 2 at the prosecutor’s office. From March 2015 to September 2015, when the election of this case was completed, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were sent to Defendant 2 upon the request of Defendant 1 by deeming that a telephone conversation was made more than 40 times during the period from March 2015 to September 2015.

③ On May 1, 2015, after Defendant 1 was elected as the chairman of the △△△△△△△△ Council, Defendant 2 visited Defendant 1’s home to take a public recruitment procedure for the representative director of the Nonindicted Company 2, and asked Defendant 1 to visit Defendant 1’s home to pack the cash of KRW 50 million, and then put Defendant 2 into a color shopping bag, and read, “I am dysn’t dysn’t dysing the cash,” and Defendant 1 was also aware of the fact that the cash was contained in the election expenses from the time when he received the said shopping bags.

④ After Defendant 1’s election, the promise was not written in advance, and Defendant 1 paid the larger amount of KRW 50 million in cash at Defendant 1’s own home at one time. As to this, Defendant 1 appears to have been aware of Defendant 2’s intention to make a personnel solicitation by being transferred from Nonindicted 4.

⑤ At the end of May, 2015, Nonindicted 9 testified that Defendant 2 was a candidate other than Defendant 2’s representative director, and that Nonindicted 2 was able to support and fluent to the office of representative director. Nonindicted 1 (Nonindicted 2) stated that “Defendant 2 was fluent to pay money.” This seems to be due to Defendant 2’s solicitation for personnel solicitation to Defendant 1, and that Defendant 1 was pushed Defendant 2.

④ Defendant 2 requested to help Defendant 1 return the money and valuables provided to Defendant 1 through the persons on the part of Defendant 1’s election campaign who had been active at Defendant 2’s election campaign immediately after the death in the process of soliciting the representative director of Nonindicted Company 2. Defendant 1 also asked Defendant 1 to have the money and valuables provided by Defendant 1. Ultimately, Defendant 2 returned the money and valuables provided by himself from Defendant 1. This support that the said money and valuables were provided in collusion with Nonindicted Company 2’s personnel solicitation, contrary to Defendant 2’s assertion that: (a) the said money and valuables were merely used for compensating for the election expenses or taking the expenses for the election expenses.

㈏ 당심의 판단

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below and completed the examination of evidence, the judgment of the court below that recognized that Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million from Defendant 2 in return for an illegal solicitation that he was appointed as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 company, is justified and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles in its judgment.

Therefore, this part of Defendant 1’s assertion is without merit.

Judgment on Doz. Doz. Do.

㈎ 원심의 판단

For the following reasons, the lower court recognized that Defendant 1 received KRW 50 million from Defendant 2 as the intention of acquisition from the time when he received it.

① Defendant 1 contacted Defendant 2 on June 10, 2015, after the lapse of at least one month from May 1, 2015, Defendant 1 received money and valuables, and returned money and valuables on June 11, 2015 following the following day.

② Defendant 1 did not express or deliver an intention to return money or valuables to Defendant 2 on one occasion through telephone or mobile phone text messages, etc., or on one hand during the period exceeding one month before receiving a demand for return from Defendant 2.

③ Defendant 2 first requested Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 9, who were Defendant 1’s election campaign workers, to return KRW 50 million from Defendant 1, on June 6, 2015 immediately after the withdrawal from the public recruitment procedure for Nonindicted Company 2’s representative director.

④ In the process of returning money and valuables, Defendant 1 said to the effect that Defendant 2 “it is necessary to adjust the interview points that he left behind.” It is interpreted to mean that Defendant 1 should no longer have any reason to hold the money and valuables and return them because the money and valuables were not achieved as a result.

⑤ Defendant 2 consistently stated from the prosecutor’s office to the court of the court below that there was a trace of opening the package of the money returned, and this reflects that the packing condition at the time of giving money was not maintained as it was.

㈏ 당심의 판단

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below and completed the examination of evidence, the judgment of the court below that recognized that Defendant 1 received it from Defendant 2 as the intention of acquisition from the time he received KRW 50 million from Defendant 2 is just and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in its judgment.

Therefore, this part of Defendant 1’s assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to Defendant 2’s assertion (misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection)

Article 357(3) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016) provides that the property acquired by a criminal who received property in breach of trust shall be confiscated, but if it is impossible to confiscate the property or if it is acquired any pecuniary benefit, the equivalent value shall be collected.

The purpose of this is to deprive the offender of the relevant property acquired from the offender so that he/she could not have the offender hold unlawful profits. Thus, in cases where he/she stored the property acquired by the inquireer as it is and returned the property to the inquireer, it cannot be collected from the inquireer who should be confiscated or collected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2783, Feb. 28, 1984; 2009Do9469, Jan. 28, 2010).

According to the records, since Defendant 1 returned the cash amount of KRW 50 million received from Defendant 2 to Defendant 2 as it is, Defendant 1 did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection in the judgment of the court below that collected KRW 50 million from Defendant 2, the person who acquired the property in breach of trust, and the case (Supreme Court Decision 83Do406 delivered on August 23, 1983) pointed out by Defendant 2 is different from the case where the person who acquired the property in breach of trust returned the same amount as the amount of the property in violation of trust.

Therefore, this part of the defendant 2's assertion is without merit.

3) Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion

A) Determination as to Defendant 1’s obstruction of business

The prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on this part is still subject to the judgment of the court.

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone caused the mistake, dismissal, and site for the election management business by Defendant 1’s act, or that there was a risk of undermining the appropriateness and fairness of election management business of election management members, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

㈎ 서약서의 제출행위로 인하여 선거관리위원들의 선거관리업무를 방해할 위험이 발생하였는지 여부에 관하여, 아래와 같은 사정을 고려하면 서약서의 제출행위만으로는 금품제공에 관한 내심의 의도나 이를 위한 준비행위를 숨긴 정도에 불과하고 선거관리위원들로 하여금 해당 입후보자가 서약서 내용대로 규정을 모두 준수하고 그 위반행위를 하지 않을 것이라거나 그 위반행위에 관한 사실관계를 오인, 착각하도록 하거나 또는 이를 알지 못하도록 하는 부지 상태를 발생시키거나 유지시킴으로써 선거관리업무의 수행 또는 그 업무의 적정성 내지 공정성을 해할 위험이 발생하였다고 보기 어렵다.

(1) According to the regulations on the election management of △△△△△△ Council, the chairperson of the election management commission has the authority to examine relevant documents necessary for registering candidates, not to verify the registration of persons deemed inappropriate, and even after the fact that the grounds for disqualification are discovered, registration may be invalidated, and he/she has the authority to impose sanctions by monitoring and controlling the acts detrimental to the fairness of election.

② A written oath submitted by Defendant 1 is one of the essential documents for the registration of the candidate. This seems to have the purpose and character to identify the measures taken by the election commission and the disadvantage of the candidate to be suffered when the candidate violates the various internal regulations, such as the articles of association or election management regulations of the △△△△ Council.

③ The authority and duties of the △△△△△△△ Council’s election commission under the Election Management Act do not vary depending on the candidate’s submission before and after the submission of the said pledge, and the same applies to the perception of the election commission as to the candidate’s awareness, and thus, the candidate continued to violate the Election Management Regulations before and after the submission of the pledge.

㈏ 서약서의 제출행위 전후에 걸친 금품제공의 준비행위와 실행행위로 인하여 선거관리위원들의 선거관리업무를 방해할 위험이 발생하였는지 여부에 관하여, 아래와 같은 사정을 고려하면 이 부분 공소사실에 위계행위라고 기재된 여러 행위태양들만으로는 업무방해행위의 상대방으로 적시된 선거관리위원들로 하여금 금품살포 등 부정선거행위나 선거관련 규정의 위반행위에 대한 감시, 단속 등을 통한 공정한 선거관리업무를 수행하는데 있어서 착각, 오인 또는 부지를 불러일으켜 이를 이용함으로써 그 업무의 적정성이나 공정성을 해할 위험이 있는 위계가 있었다거나, 이로 인하여 선거관리위원들로 하여금 선거관리업무와 관련하여 그릇된 처분이나 행위를 하게 하는 등으로 그 적정성이나 공정성을 해할 위험이 발생하였다고 보기 어렵다.

① Even if the representatives agreed to be provided with money and goods and to receive funds therefor during the election campaign process, it is merely an act of preparing for the representatives to provide money and goods in the future, and it is difficult to view that the above internal deliberation or agreement itself used any deceptive scheme against the election commission or election management members.

(2) Even if some representatives who were registered as a candidate after the examination of qualifications for candidate was registered as a candidate and thereafter offered money and valuables, such act alone cannot be deemed to have committed any fraudulent act against the election management members identified as the other party to the act of interference with business in this part of the facts charged unless there exist any special circumstances. It is merely a violation of the prohibited act stipulated in the △△△△△ Election Management Regulations by avoiding monitoring and controlling the election management members.

③ Even if it was difficult to control and detect election management members with respect to spraying money and valuables, it appears that the act of spraying money and valuables appeared to have been carried out in a fast manner through Defendant 1’s consultation with limited persons inside the election campaign. Defendant 1’s act of submitting the said written oath is difficult to deem that the election management duties, including illegal election monitoring activities of election management members, have been mitigated or mitigated, or that there was a risk of undermining the performance of election management duties or the propriety or fairness of election management duties, such as the control authority or examination authority on election-related violations or the authority to regulate or examine election-related violations.

④ Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that Defendant 1 had made a false disposition or act by election management members on the basis that Defendant 1 had committed an act of submitting a written oath or an act of offering money and valuables to representatives and had been provided with funds therefrom, and that he actually provided money and valuables after being registered as a candidate.

She The Judgment of the Court

The crime of interference with business may be established even if a deceptive scheme does not directly place a person in charge of the relevant business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 2013; 2013Do5814, Nov. 28, 2013). However, the mere violation of the prohibition provision cannot be deemed as a deceptive scheme for the crime of interference with business merely with business. Even if a person in charge of surveillance and control in a specific and practical manner faithfully performs his/her duties, it should be recognized that the person actively uses a deceptive scheme, which is practically difficult to detect, to prevent the performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1731, Aug. 25, 2005).

However, even after examining the record, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which makes it difficult to detect the fact in the ordinary process of business even if the election management members to monitor and control the act of offering money and valuables prohibited by Defendant 1 faithfully perform their duties.

The lower court determined that Defendant 1’s act was divided into the act of submitting a written oath, the act of offering money and goods, and the act of offering money and goods, and the act of offering money and goods, by dividing it into a specific phase whether it can be recognized as the existence of deceptive act that makes it difficult for Defendant 1 to detect in excess of the act of offering money and goods, and it does not appear to have determined to the effect that only Defendant 1’s act was prosecuted. Therefore, the lower

On the other hand, the prosecutor pointed out the following circumstances: "Defendant 1 was engaged in election campaign in a manner that does not violate the regulations on the election management, and the representative who received money from Defendant 1 was engaged in election campaign in a manner that does not go against the regulations on the election management, and the election management regulations stipulate that the election management members could not issue a warning to disclosure, registration, invalidation, and invalidation of election, and deprive the representatives who received money and valuables from Defendant 1 of the voting management members of the voting management members as if they were to exercise voting rights in the voting place managed by Defendant 1, and thereby preventing the election management members from being deprived of voting rights." However, this does not affect the conclusion of the court below in that it cannot be deemed as a deceptive act that makes it difficult to detect the provision of money and valuables by election management members.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B) Determination as to the crime of giving and taking property in breach of trust against Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

The prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on this part is still subject to the judgment of the court.

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove that Defendant 1, in relation to the promotion of tourism business in connection with the △△△△ Council, he received property benefits from Defendant 3 in return for illegal solicitation from Defendant 3, or that Defendant 3 provided such property benefits to Defendant 1 to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation.

㈎ 피고인 1이 ☆☆ ☆☆☆☆회와 연계한 관광 사업 추진과 관련하여 타인의 사무를 처리하는 자의 지위에 있었는지 여부에 관하여, 아래와 같은 사정을 고려하면 이 부분 공소사실에서 피고인 1이 담당하는 사무로 기재되어 있는 ☆☆ ☆☆☆☆회와의 교류를 통한 △△△△회의 관광 사업의 추진이라는 것은 공소사실에서 청탁의 시기로 기재된 2015년 6월경이나 공소외 15에게 4억 원의 지급이 이루어진 같은 해 9. 23.경 무렵을 기준으로 볼 때 이 사건 선거에서 당선되어 신임 회장으로 취임한 피고인 1의 구상에 따라 △△△△회에서 추진해 볼 만한 새로운 수익사업의 하나로 제안된 후 ☆☆ ☆☆☆☆회 내부에서 영향력을 행사할 수 있는 공소외 5와 가까운 혈연관계에 있던 피고인 3을 통하여 ☆☆ ☆☆☆☆회 측의 의사와 이에 따른 성사가능성 여부를 타진하고 협의하는 과정 내지는 신규 수익사업의 하나로 장차 추진하는 것을 검토하는 단계에 있어 그 사업의 성사 여부나 실현 여부가 불확실한 상황에 있었을 뿐이고, 이와 달리 위와 같은 관광 사업을 운영할 것이 구체적으로 확정되었다거나 합리적으로 기대되는 상태에 있었다고 보기는 어려우며, 그 이후 한국의 △△△△회가 중국의 ☆☆☆☆회와 연계하여 양국의 회원들을 상대로 한 관광 사업(이하 ‘이 사건 관광 사업’이라 한다)의 추진이 구체화되었다거나 가시화되는 등으로 △△△△회 회장인 피고인 1이 담당한 사무가 되었다고 볼 수 없다.

① In accordance with the direction of Defendant 1, the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was launched to review the implementation of the △△△△△△△△△△’s security tourism project with Chinese discharged soldiers. For this purpose, it is necessary to seek assistance from Nonindicted 5 △△△△△△△△△△ in order to prevent the influence of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Council, which was located in the Chinese regular course and in the middle of the two occasions when the President was invited to visit Korea. The △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which was one of the five and the same doors with Defendant 1, was visiting China for the smooth contact with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which was not prepared or introduced the plan.

② Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 15 stated in the prosecutorial investigation to the effect that the company established by the △△△△△△△, △△△△△△△△△, △△△△△, and Defendant 3 had carried on the business with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ in a manner that held shares in the instant tourism business. However, in the course of proving the process of issuing the certificate of receipt issued by Nonindicted 15, which was seized at Nonindicted 15’s office after the investigation of this case, Defendant 3 made a false statement as the investment for the establishment of a new corporation for the promotion of tourism business between △△△△△△△△△△△△ and △△△△△△△△△△△△, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 15, etc., which were seized by Nonindicted 15’s office, the company could not be deemed to have carried on tourism business after consultation with Defendant 1’s order as in this part of the facts charged, or the investor’s actual promotion of the business.

③ It appears that Defendant 3 was not a business specifically examined at the level of △△△△△ Council, but rather, Defendant 3 was affiliated by inserting considerable time and effort by using the connection of Nonindicted Party 5, who was well-known at the △△△△ Council, and carrying out negotiations on business trip to China. The direction of carrying out the business following the agreement is certain, the business should be specified, and the commencement of the business and the realization of profits therefrom could be possible. Accordingly, Defendant 3 visited China as an agent and visited China as the head of △△△△△ Council or the representative of the △△△△△ Council, and sent the content of the business plan proposed by Defendant 1 as the head of △△△△△△△△ Council, and it appears that it still difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 or △△△△△△△ Council to bring about the intention of the other party and deliver it again to the △△△ Council in consultation with the big framework on the progress of the business. However, Defendant 1 and 3 were still unable to respond to the above △△△△△△△ Council.

㈏ 이 사건 관광 사업과 관련하여 부정한 청탁의 대가로 4억 원이 수수되었는지 여부에 관하여, 아래 사정을 고려하면 피고인 3이 피고인 1의 요청을 받아 공소외 15에게 대신 지급한 4억 원이 피고인 3의 이 사건 관광 사업의 추진이나 신속한 진행에 관한 부정한 청탁의 대가로 지급되었음을 인정하기 어렵다.

① Examining the initial process of the instant tourism business around June 2015 and seeking the implementation thereof, Defendant 3, regardless of the fact that Defendant 1 paid KRW 400 million to Nonindicted 15 on behalf of Defendant 1 on September 23, 2015, appears to have been made by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, Nonindicted 5, at all times, upon Defendant 3’s first request for contact with the △△△△△△△△△ Council, △△△△△△△ Council on behalf of Nonindicted 5. Thus, it is difficult to view Defendant 3 to have made any unlawful solicitation or request with Defendant 1 regarding the instant tourism promotion on June 2015.

② From September 23, 2015, when Defendant 3 paid KRW 400 million to Nonindicted 15, Defendant 3 did not have any position to demand or expect Defendant 1 to carry out the instant tourism business. Rather, Defendant 3 did not only deliver to the △△△△△△△△△△, when Defendant 3 was planned to carry out the tourism business together with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, the intention that Defendant 3 would promptly proceed with the tourism business, and it is difficult to deem that Defendant 3, as well as Defendant 3, as the demand for the rapid promotion of the instant tourism business, was promoting the tourism business as his own business or prepared for it.

③ around September 2015, Defendant 3 came to know that Defendant 1 was under severe pressure with Defendant 1’s demand for payment of election funds from Nonindicted 15, and Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 paid the said money to Nonindicted 15, instead of preparing KRW 400 million in total, upon Defendant 1’s request, and Defendant 3 did not seem to have actively paid the said money by demanding or having demanded any consideration for the promotion of the instant tourism business.

④ Defendant 3 stated at the prosecutor’s office that “I would actively engage in the instant tourism business if I prepared money as stated above and delivered investment money to Nonindicted 15” on August 2015. However, it cannot be ruled out that Defendant 1 made an exaggeration or false statement in the process of carrying out the investment money for the promotion of tourism business connected with △△△ Council in order to conceal the fact that the said money was paid to Defendant 1 for the purpose of resolving Defendant 1’s election fund issues, and even if Defendant 1 told Defendant 1 to the effect that “I will interfere with the promotion of the foregoing business,” it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s statement alone in light of the progress and progress of the tourism business at the time, etc. as seen earlier, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 3 would give and take an illegal solicitation with Defendant 3 as an administrator of business affairs in relation to the instant tourism business.

She The Judgment of the Court

Upon examining the record, the judgment of the court below that it cannot be deemed that the △△△△△△△ was specifically finalized or reasonably expected to operate the tourism business in this part until June 2015 or September 23, 2015 that Defendant 1 received illegal solicitation from Defendant 3 is justifiable. It is not allowed to excessively expand the scope of application of the crime of breach of trust, and it does not change because it does not change because the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ was in a position to be able to run the tourism business in this part, and it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below that it is not possible to recognize Defendant 1 as an administrator of the business in this part of this part of this case, because it is not possible to recognize the status of Defendant 1 as an administrator of the business in this case, under Article 357 (1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 14178, May 29, 2016).

In addition, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., whether Defendant 3 was realized within the term of office of Defendant 1 or not, and there is no need to pay large amount of money that is KRW 400 million in favor of Defendant 3 in order to take advantage of an uncertain project, etc., it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 3 received Defendant 1’s request from Defendant 1 and paid 400 million to Nonindicted 15 in lieu of Defendant 3 in return for an illegal solicitation regarding the promotion or prompt progress of the tourism business of this case, the judgment of the court below that held that it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 3 was paid as

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

1) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing on Defendant 1

Defendant 1, the chairperson of the △△△△△ Council, received a large amount of money on several occasions in return for personnel solicitation from applicants who wish to serve as the representative director of the affiliated company, thereby damaging the social trust in the administration of the affairs of the △△△△△△ Council, which is subsidized by the State and local governments, to which the subsidies and operating expenses

On the other hand, Defendant 1 does not actively demand money and valuables, and the money and valuables provided by Defendant 2 after the commencement of the investigation is returned, and there is no record of criminal punishment in favor of Defendant 1.

In addition, in full view of all other circumstances, including Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant 1 is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant 1 and prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant 1 is without merit.

2) Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Defendant 1 did not have any record of criminal punishment, and instead, he was the time of committing the instant crime, and the fact that the purpose of the filing of a lawsuit has not been achieved due to the fall at the stage prior to the final interview of Nonindicted Company 2, is favorable to Defendant 2.

However, in full view of all other circumstances, including Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against Defendant 2 is unreasonable, as it did not appear that the lower court’s sentence on Defendant 2 is unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

A. As seen earlier, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1’s acquittal and the part as to Defendant 3’s reversal ex officio is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part as to Defendant 1’s acquittal and Defendant 3’s reversal is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through the pleading.

B. On the other hand, since the remaining appeals by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

A. Presumed facts

1) The establishment purpose and organization of the △△△△ Council

Pursuant to the Korean Veterans Association Act, the △△△△△△ Council is a juristic person established with the approval of the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs for the purpose of promoting friendship among veterans through mutual aid among veterans, improving the rights and interests of its members, and contributing to the national development and the public interest. The organization consists of 13 City/Do councils, 220 Si/Gun/Gu councils, 3,262 Eup/Myeon/Dong councils, and 22 overseas circuits. The number of regular members is 1320,000 and 1110,000 won.

In addition to the headquarters, the △△△△△△△ Council operates seven affiliated companies (Nonindicted 11 companies, the △△△△△△ Council, etc.), and three affiliated companies (the ○○○ Headquarters, the △△△△△△ Council, etc.) with sales performance exceeding KRW 400 billion a year, and operates various other profit-making businesses, and receives subsidies from the State to KRW 13 billion a year. In addition, the above 13 City/Do Councils and the 220 Si/Gun/Gu Councils have received subsidies from local governments to cover the total operating expenses of KRW 9 billion a year.

2) Election and election commission activities of the △△△△ Council

Pursuant to the Veterans Association Act, the △△△△△ Council’s articles of association, and the regulations on the management of the △△△ Council, the 380 representatives shall be elected from the national City/Do president, the Si/Gun/Gu president, etc.

In addition, the Election Management Regulations of △△△△△△△ Council (amended on December 29, 201) prohibits illegal election campaigns, such as the duties of the election commission, the prior election campaign, and the prohibition of illegal election campaigns. Article 8 of the Election Management Regulations provides that preparation of the electoral register, the examination of candidate registration affairs and eligibility requirements, the examination of election campaign management affairs and the violation of prohibition or restriction on election campaigns, and the confirmation of elected persons as a result of ballot counting, etc. In addition, Article 28 of the Election Management Regulations prohibits full-time election campaigns during the election campaign period of one year prior to the date of public announcement of candidate. Article 29 of the Election Management Regulations prohibits an election campaign by using the candidate or other person in question during the election campaign period and election campaign period, such as “the act of offering or promising money or goods, other property benefits, or public or private positions in connection with the election, or the illegal election campaign during the election campaign period and election campaign period, the chairman may give public warning, warning, invalid the election management of a candidate or candidate, and may invalidate the election.

Around October 10, 2014, the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ Council organized an election commission consisting of 16 members, including one chairperson, 14 members, and one secretary, who will take charge of the election of the head of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on April 10, 201, according to the above election management regulations. The election commission of the 35th △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was determined as follows: (a) the election commission managed the overall matters concerning the election, including the registration of candidates, the qualification examination of candidates, the election campaign management, the examination of violation of the prohibition of illegal election, and the

Public announcement of candidates on March 26, 2015 on the main date and time schedule included in the main sentence; the voting and ballot counting on March 10, 2015; the decision on the elected person; and the public announcement on March 10, 2015 during the election campaign period on March 26, 2015, when the candidate is registered as candidate on March 23, 2015;

In order to ensure the fair management of the 35th △△△△ meeting, the △△△ meeting was established, and the 10th 10 meeting was held by the chairman and the majority of the members of the 35th △△△△ meeting; the 3rd △△△ meeting was held against the representatives of the candidates; the 5th e-mail and letters were sent to the candidates and representatives, and the 5th e-mail and letters were sent to the 5th △△△△ meeting, and the 3th △△△△△△ meeting was sent to the former △△△△△ meeting’s direction to the 3

In particular, on March 18, 2015, the election commission announced the fact that the elected person provided money and valuables to the elector in the election of the △△△△ Council Chairperson, which was implemented on February 2, 2015 through a letter of the Chairperson of the Election Management Committee on March 18, 2015, the election commission announced that the election was made a disposition of invalidation of the election by providing money and valuables to the elector. On five occasions, public warnings were given to the suspected candidates who violated the election management regulations and deprived of voting rights to one representative who opened the Kakao

3) Status of the Defendants

피고인 1은 1962년경 육군 소위로 임관하여 1993년 9월경 육군대장(▷군 사령관)으로 예편한 후 2009년 9월경 실시된 제33대 △△△△회 회장 선거 및 2012년 4월경 실시된 제34대 △△△△회 회장 선거에 출마하여 모두 낙선하였다가, 2015. 4. 10. 실시된 제35대 △△△△회 회장 선거에서 회장으로 당선된 자로서, △△△△회를 대표하고 그 사무를 총괄하면서 산하기업체 및 직영사업부의 장을 임명하는 지위에 있다.

Nonindicted 15 is the representative director of Nonindicted 21 corporation for the purpose of operating a hotel, and is a person who conducts other business, such as auction of real estate, sale by proxy, etc.

The non-indicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1) was engaged in a regular business from August 2006 to January 201, 201 in the non-indicted 2 company (the title at that time was referred to as "non-indicted 2 company"). After Defendant 1 was elected as the chairperson of the △△△△△△△△△△△△, he is a person who works as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 company from June 8, 2015 to June.

From August 2008, Defendant 2 served as the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul △△△△△△△△△ Council and as the head of the △△△△ branch of Nonindicted Company 2, and Defendant 2 was a person who supported Nonindicted Company 2’s representative director on or around June 2015 and went away.

Defendant 3 knew from the beginning of the 1990s, and served as the president of Nonindicted Foundation 22 in the Cheongju as Defendant 1, Defendant 3 was a person who aided Defendant 1’s election campaign at the election of the chairman of the △△△△△△△△△ Council.

B. Specific criminal facts

1) Defendant 1’s obstruction of business

around August 2014, Defendant 1 introduced Nonindicted 15 to the election of the chairman of the △△△△△△△△ Council. Nonindicted 13’s secretary was introduced from Nonindicted 13 to Nonindicted 15. At around October 2014, Defendant 1 prepared an election office at Nonindicted 15’s expense in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and carried out an election campaign against Defendant 1 for 380 representatives of the nation who have the right to vote while leading 60 to 70 election campaign workers.

Defendant 1: (a) around that time, at the above election office with Nonindicted 15, Defendant 1 prepared a “Matters for consultation with the head of a supporters’ association or the head of a △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ candidate” with the head of the above election office, stating that “Nonindicted 15 shall receive at least 190 marks from October 2014 to April 2015 all the oath funds, including deposits, election activities, election office, election vehicles, news articles, etc.; and (b) Defendant 1 shall, when elected as the chairperson, have the right to participate in the business run at the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which shall be 15,000 won.”

After that, around March 11, 2015, Defendant 1 submitted a written oath to the election commission that “I will observe the articles of association and all the regulations under the Korean △△△△ Council Act, and will accept any disposition of the election commission at the time of the violation, and in particular, I, upon offering money and valuables beyond the courtesy scope during the election campaign period, swear that I will resign prior to the disposition of the election commission,” and registered as a candidate for the chairman of the 35th △△△△△△△ Council.

However, from March 2015 to April 9, 2015, Defendant 1, based on the results of analysis conducted through the nationwide tour and individual representatives contact, instructed Nonindicted 15 to deliver a large amount of cash that was dried from time to time from time to time to time to time to time to time to Nonindicted 13 secretary, and to pay 5 million won per representative to the representatives, based on the aforementioned Nonindicted 15’s promise, and ordered Nonindicted 13 secretary to pay 5 million won per head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi-do, Incheon, Incheon, Gangwon-do, Daejeon, Busan, Busan, Busan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Jeju, and Gyeong-do, and the Seoul, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Director-General, 23 to 10,000 won per head of the Gu, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Director-General, 24 to 10,000 won per head of the Gu, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Director-General, 30,000 won per head of the Gu.

Defendant 1, as well as Defendant 1, from March 2015 to April 9, 2015, issued a plastic bag containing 200 5 million won per head among 380 representatives of the Republic of Korea to 380 representatives, thereby adversely affecting the representatives’ voting activities, thereby having the above representatives cast their vote at election, and the above 200 representatives, who were 20 representatives, cast their vote at election, were in violation of the Election Management Regulations in the election of the 35th △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Group, which is managed by the Election Commission at the Seoul Special Metropolitan Gwangjin-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, in the election of the chairman of the Seoul Special Self-Governing City Do 200 representatives, and as a result, the Defendant obtained 250 marks out of 379 of the total voting number and received the election certificate from the election commission.

However, as seen above, Defendant 1 received a large amount of election funds from Nonindicted 15 to the head of the management office in charge of all profit-making businesses of the △△△△△△△△△, and paid approximately KRW 5 million to the above 200 representatives, and caused the above representatives to support themselves, thereby violating Article 48(1) of the Election Management Regulations, Defendant 1’s warning of disclosure, registration invalidation, and election invalidation were generated, and Defendant 1’s representatives who received money from Defendant 1 violated Article 48(3) of the Election Management Regulations, but did not engage in election campaign in a manner that does not go against the Election Management Regulations, even though there was a reason for deprivation of voting rights, Defendant 1 was committed in a manner that does not go against the Election Management Regulations, and as such, Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that the above representatives received money and valuables and did not exercise voting rights in the voting place managed by the election management members in accordance with the Election Management Regulations.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, in return for the promise to offer the position of the head of the management headquarters to Nonindicted 15, received a large amount of money and valuables, and provided 200 representatives who have voting rights to vote, and caused the above representatives to vote in a fair manner in accordance with the election management regulations so that the election management members to manage the election in a fair manner by deceiving Defendant 1 as if they were voting in a fair manner by hiding their intention to vote with Defendant 1, thereby hindering the fair election management of the election management members as a deceptive scheme by preventing the disclosure warning, registration invalidation, and invalidation of the election management members, and by preventing the above representatives from being deprived of their voting rights.

2) Acceptance of property in breach of trust from Defendant 1’s Defendant 3

The △△△△△△ Council may implement new projects in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Chapter 6 of the Regulations on Profit-Making Business within the Veterans Association and the △△△△△△ Council.

Defendant 1, in June 2015, at the headquarters of the △△△△△△△ Council, Defendant 3, in connection with the Chinese △△△ Council, could make it possible for Korea to make the members of the two countries receive tourism benefits, so that he can carry out the tourism business.On receipt of an illegal solicitation, Defendant 3 consented to it. From around that time, Defendant 3 started practical discussions with the persons related to the △△△△△△ Council in China and carried out the tourism business in this case.

On July 10, 2015, Defendant 1 received a request from Nonindicted 15 to “a request to repay election funds provided in the process of the △△△△ Chairperson election” from Defendant 3, and around August 2015, Defendant 1 stated that “If a large amount of money is prepared as the money was repaid to Nonindicted 15, Defendant 1 would be actively supported by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.”

After that, around September 23, 2015, Defendant 1 heard the words “400 million won” from Defendant 3, and even with Defendant 3, Defendant 3 knew that the amount of KRW 400 million was the price for illegal solicitation related to the instant tourist business, Defendant 1 had Defendant 3 pay Nonindicted 150 million on behalf of Nonindicted 15.

As a result, Defendant 1 acquired financial benefits of KRW 400 million in return for an illegal solicitation from Defendant 3 regarding his duties.

3) Defendant 3’s evidence of breach of trust

In June 2015, Defendant 3 made an illegal solicitation to Defendant 1 to the effect that “Korea △△△△△△ may make a tour business for its members in connection with the Chinese △△△△ Council, and thus, it would be possible for Defendant 1 to carry out the tourism business.” Defendant 3 obtained consent from Defendant 1, and around that time, Defendant 1 followed practical discussions with the persons related to the △△△△△△△ Council in China and with the persons related to the △△△△ Council in China.

At around August 2015, Defendant 3: (a) heard the statement from Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 that “I shall repay the election funds received from Nonindicted 15 in the course of the election of the head of the △△△△△△ Council; (b) I would give more active support to the tourism business of this case at the △△△△△△ Council if I have repaid a large amount of money to Nonindicted 15; and (c) around September 23, 2015, I provided Defendant 1 with an unjust solicitation to the effect that “I would be able to actively promote the tourism business of this case at the △△△△△△△ Council,” which reads that “I would be able to give more active support to the tourism business of this case,” instead of KRW 40 million.

2. Determination

As seen in the above 2.2.3(a) and 2.2.3(b)(c) of the facts charged, each of the charges acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of this part of the judgment is publicly notified pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Chang-sik (Presiding Judge)