South Korean War, No. 1040,000

The defendant is a person who served as the President of the Republic of Korea from C to D.

No public official shall engage in any act of participating in the planning of an election campaign or in the implementation of such planning by taking advantage of his/her status, and investigate the degree of support of the electors for any political party or candidate (including any person who intends to become a candidate) and conduct any competition campaign in the intra-party competition using his/her status.

Nevertheless, the defendant, as the president, shall exercise overall control over the state affairs, received assistance from G, which is the Chief Secretary of the F Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "Chief Secretary"), and could take part in the planning of the election campaign or the implementation thereof, and conducted a public opinion poll on the issues of the state affairs to seek plans for the management of the state affairs, and excluded so-called so-called ‘NA' 'I' 'H' 'H' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'B' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' as a member of the National Assembly, and 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I'.

1. Participation in planning election campaigns and continuing public opinion polls for the expansion of friendlyA forces;

Since January of 2015 to March 201, the Defendant: (a) reported the current status of candidates for the 1st election campaign by using the presidential election position of the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election district; (b) reported the current status of candidates for the 2nd election campaign to the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election campaign; and (c) reported the current status of candidates for the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election campaign to the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election campaign; and (d) reported the current status of candidates for the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election campaign; and (e) reported the current status of candidates for the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election district to the 2nd executive officer of the 2nd election campaign; and (e) reported the current status of candidates for the 1st executive officer of the 2nd election district to the 2nd executive officer of the 2nd election district; and (e) reported the results of the 1st executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the 3nd election district.

In addition, in January 2016, G requires K, etc. to develop external titles and logic such as ‘the exclusion of disqualified groups, such as members of the National Assembly,' for the expansion of ‘the exclusion of female members of the non-Athic military forces,' so that G may deprive the non-Athic military personnel of the opportunity of light election in order to eliminate the non-Athic military personnel from the official space and enhance the possibility of election of the non-Athic people. In order to develop the logic such as ‘the creation of a new environment such as a new political person, etc.' that reflects the degree of support for the general public who are not party members, such as the public opinion poll methodology and the creation of a new environment such as solar quality' that reflects the degree of support of the general public who are not party members, it is necessary to make documents by arranging the way to determine the Ithic military affairs in favor of the people Athics, and to continuously revise and supplement it by taking advantage of the presidential position, the defendant has received the approval of the strategy and related data related to the document.

2. The Defendant continued to participate in the competition campaign, etc. in the I. In order to select pro-A person as a member of the National Assembly or member of the National Assembly, the Defendant: (a) took advantage of the President’s position to instruct G, a subordinate employee, to deliver a pro-Ga list that was arranged as above to the I. MU on February 2016; (b) contacted on the side of the I.m. Management Committee from around that time to March 2016 so that pro-Japaneses could not be elected as a member of the National Assembly; and (c) made it possible for QU to make sure that pro-Gas would not be elected as a member of the National Assembly; and (d) made it possible for the Defendant to use his pro-Japaneses to participate in the election of the National Assembly; and (d) made it possible for QU to change the details of the “MU list to a specific local constituency for public opinion poll or to participate in the election of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly; and (e) made it possible for QU to participate in the election of the National Assembly.

3. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with G, participated in the planning of an election campaign for friendships in the I, including the persons listed in Schedule 2, by taking advantage of his status as a public official, or participated in the implementation of such planning, and investigated the elector's support for a political party or candidate as listed in Schedule 1, such as the list of crimes, and conducted an election campaign at the I.S. competition campaign on behalf of the people of friendships in the I.S. including those listed in Schedule 2.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness K, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, and AE, and each legal statement of witness G and L;

1. A statement submitted by the defendant to this court;

1. Copies of the record of each examination of a witness in relation to AA, K, and Z in the protocol of trial Nos. 2017, 1233, 2018, 118 (Joint) of the Seoul Central District Court;

1. The interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office against A, Z, and AC, and some of the interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's office concerning G are written;

1. The written statement by each prosecutor's office on K, X, V, AD, AF, W, AB,Y, and AE, and the written statement by the prosecutor's office on L, part of the written statement by the prosecutor's office;

1. An investigation report (report attached to the purchase and sale place of financial data of a stock company), an investigation report (report attached to the 500 million won receipt signed by W), an investigation report (report attached to the AGV representative e-mail data), an investigation report (report attached to the AGV representative e-mail data), and an investigation report (report attached to the AGV representative data) - Each copy of the relevant data, one copy of the output of the 2015-2017 Office, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, the President of the Ministry of Culture, and the AH sales, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, one copy of the receipt of KRW 50 million, one copy of the purchase details related to the public opinion poll, one copy of the e-mail data received by representatives of AGV, 13 copies of the e-mail data submitted by the AGV representative, 12 copies of the e-mail proposal, one copy of the AGV-1 document and one copy of the contract document.

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel shall include G's statements or the contents of the defendant's statements among K and AB's respective statements relating to H's instructions or approvals in connection with H's total meetings.

The author argues that the hearsay evidence is hearsay evidence and thus it is inadmissible.

2. Determination

A. Even if a document recording a statement becomes hearsay evidence when the authenticity of its content is used as direct evidence against a crime, it does not necessarily become hearsay evidence when it is used as circumstantial evidence for an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do16001, Jun. 13, 2013). Furthermore, where a statement containing a statement made by another person is determined as hearsay evidence in relation to the fact requiring proof, and where the fact constituting the original statement is a fact requiring proof, said document is deemed hearsay evidence, and where the existence of the original statement itself is an essential fact requiring proof, said document is not original evidence nor hearsay evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012).

B. In accordance with the above legal principles, K and AB’s statements concerning the fact that the Defendant stated or approved the fact that the Defendant instructed or approved from G are not admissible by the hearsay rule. However, as circumstantial evidence concerning indirect facts (the fact that G talks about the direction and approval of the Defendant) that may recognize that the Defendant instructed or approved the Defendant, it is admissible (in addition, G’s statement that stated the Defendant’s instruction or approval to K and AB as above is not hearsay evidence, but hearsay evidence, to the extent that it proves that the Defendant’s instruction or approval exists, not hearsay evidence, and it is admissible as it falls under the original evidence).

Meanwhile, in a case where the Defendant and G did not make a statement concerning a conversation made closely between the Defendant and G, there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the contents of the conversation, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts. In addition to the above statements made by K and AB, all of the indirect and circumstantial facts related to the election, including the details of preparation of various materials related to the election and the circumstances in which the materials were delivered to the Defendant, may prove the fact of the Defendant’s instruction or approval. As such, the above statements made by K and AB are used as evidence for an indirect fact recognizing the Defendant’s instruction or approval facts. Thus, it is difficult to view that the hearsay results in the use of hearsay evidence as evidence recognizing the authenticity of the contents written therein bypassing the hearsay evidence, thereby impairing the intent of the hearsay rule.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 25 (1) 10 and Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act (including the planning of election campaign using the status of a public official), Articles 255 (1) 10 and 86 (1) 3 of the Public Official Election Act (the fact of supporting political parties or candidates), Articles 255 (3) 1 and 57-6 (2) of the Public Official Election Act (the fact of violation of prohibition of intra-party competition campaign using the status of a public official; the fact of violation of attached Table 2 of the crime list 2) [the fact that each act is carried out by the public opinion poll for the purpose of achieving the specific purpose of election campaign, such as the planning of election campaign, pro-Ga, etc.] It is reasonable to view that all acts of the public opinion poll by the defendant are carried out by the public opinion poll for the purpose of achieving the specific purpose of election campaign, and the fact that each act is carried out by the public opinion poll for the purpose of achieving the specific purpose of election campaign, which is a series of continuous and independent act.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [The punishment provided for the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the planning of the election campaign by taking advantage of the status of each political party or candidate, and the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the prohibition of the intraparty competition campaign by taking advantage of the status of each public official. In the case where two crimes in substantive concurrent relations are in a mutually competitive relationship with other crimes, the so-called "consolidated effect theory" that all crimes are deemed to be in a mutually competitive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001216, Feb. 9, 2001).

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes prescribed in the Public Official Election Act due to a violation of the prohibition of intraparty competition by taking advantage of the status of a public official against T with the largest telecommunication)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a public prosecution

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The facts charged in the instant case did not specify the time, place, contents, etc. of the public offering and did not specify the time, place, and contents of the public offering, and did not specify what candidates the planning of an election campaign or the competition campaign on behalf of the candidate. As such, the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been specified.

2) Article 268 of the Public Official Election Act provides that the statute of limitations for a violation of the Public Official Election Act shall be six months after the relevant election day, and Paragraph (3) shall be ten years only for a crime committed by a public official in relation to his/her duties or by taking advantage of his/her status as a public official, and the Public Official Election Act separates a crime committed by taking advantage of his/her status as a public official. However, since the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to taking into account the support of a political party or candidate for the instant He/she is not a crime committed by taking advantage of his/her status as a public official, the statute of limitations for a public official shall expire six months after the election day. On the other hand, since the criminal prosecution was suspended during the period of his/her office, but the statute of limitations for a public official election against the Defendant shall expire since the date on which six months have elapsed since the date on which the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act was committed, and thus the statute of limitations for a public prosecution against the Defendant shall expire.

B. Judgment on the unspecified argument in the facts charged

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the time and date of a crime, place, and method shall be specified so that the facts charged can be specified." The purport of the law requiring the specification of facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of defendant's right to defense. Thus, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements of a crime can be identified by considering these elements, and even if the time, place, etc. of the crime are not specified specifically in the indictment, it does not go against the above degree, and it is inevitable to comprehensively indicate such facts in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it is deemed that there is no impediment to the defendant's exercise of right to defense against them, the contents of the indictment cannot be deemed not specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002).

2) Specific determination

A) First of all, the facts charged of the instant case include: (a) preparing 'friendly A list for the election of pro-A candidates in the H major election and I election process in accordance with the Defendant’s instruction and approval; (b) conducting a public opinion poll for pro-A candidates; and (c) preparing 'data on the current status of candidates by district election district'; and (d) delivering 'data on the present status of candidates by district competition and election campaign strategies' (hereinafter referred to as 'the above 4-A list') to the Gongcheon Management Committee. However, since the part on the relation of the Defendant’s solicitation that the Defendant directed G or approved by reporting the relevant contents from G is carried out in closed or progressively and repeatedly for a considerable period of time, it is difficult to accurately specify the date, time, details, etc. of the public opinion poll, etc.; and (d) preparing the Defendant's defense right to defense, such as pro-A list, at any time and time, and delivering it to the Gongcheon Management Committee as long as it does not interfere with the Defendant’s defense right to defense.

B) Next, in relation to the planning of an election campaign and the competition campaign, the specific form of the act of planning an election campaign or the competition campaign and the details of the crime can be identified specifically. The planning of an election campaign refers to the act of participating in the formulation of all plans to efficiently carry out an election campaign, as it does not necessarily mean an act of participating in the planning of an election campaign in mind, with the aim of carrying out an election campaign in mind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1244, Nov. 28, 2013). In addition, as well as the pro-A candidate to be comprehensively elected was specified as a whole and comprehensively in this part of the facts charged, as long as the candidate subject to the public opinion poll is specified in attached Form 1 and specific target candidates are specified in attached Table 2, it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. In addition, in the case of the facts charged regarding an election campaign, it does not interfere with the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense.

C) Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected. Determination on the completion of the statute of limitations on the part of the public opinion poll

1) Article 268(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the statute of limitations for a crime under this Act committed by a public official using his/her position or status shall expire after the lapse of ten years after the relevant election day. However, Article 268(3) is newly established as part of the revision of the Public Official Election Act to prohibit the public official from participating in an election and strengthen his/her punishment. The legislative intent of the above provision seems to be to extend the statute of limitations for public official's participation in an election for a long time unlike the crime committed by the general public. Article 268(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the statute of limitations for a crime under subparagraph 1 of the same Act shall apply to cases where a public official performs an election campaign using his/her position or status in relation to his/her duties, and Article 268(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "an act of using his/her position or status in relation to the public official's election for a period of time shall be interpreted as "an act of using his/her position or status in relation to his/her duties."

2) As examined below whether the Defendant used the status as the president in the process of the instant public opinion poll, as long as it appears that the Defendant instructed G, the president of the FF, who assists him/her in his/her duties under his/her direction and supervision, to conduct a public opinion poll on the candidates of the IF branch, which is expected to use the IF branch office and the IF branch office, and was reported the result, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant conducted a public opinion poll on the facts charged of this case through a public official of the FF branch and below who is under his/her direction by taking advantage of the presidential position. As such, the instant public opinion poll is conducted after the date when the H branch was conducted pursuant to Article 268(3) of the Public Official Election Act, and the statute of limitations expires when 10 years elapsed from D/he/she was sentenced to an impeachment trial against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion against this is not acceptable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of innocence (the grounds for the crime of oil)

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Defendant’s assertion as to the public invitation relation by the head of F.

As to the instant election campaign, the Defendant did not give instructions to G or received reports or approval from G in relation to the planning, public opinion polls, and competition campaign, and therefore, the Defendant cannot recognize a public relation with G, etc.

2) Opinion on the part of conducting public opinion polls

The purpose of the Public Official Election Act is to examine the degree of support that is prohibited under the Public Official Election Act is limited to the purpose of exercising unfair influence on the election. The public opinion poll act in this case was conducted in order to analyze the H-ray market and to refer to the prediction of the result of the election and to the establishment of the future state administration plan, and it does not aim at exercising unfair influence on the election. Therefore, the support prohibited under the

3) Claim on part of participation in the planning of an election campaign

A) The instant public opinion poll act was conducted for the purpose of simply analyzing the sales price of the H-ray in the F-chief office to simply predict the outcome of the election and establishing a plan for managing the state affairs in the future. The previous government also conducted public opinion poll practice for the political parties and candidates before the election. Therefore, it does not constitute an act of planning an election campaign.

B) With respect to the data on the preparation of the F Office, such as pro-A list, a ‘wide competition and election strategy data' is used as internal reference data for the election strategies formulated at a party level, not for the election strategies to be established independently from the F Office, but for the competition and election campaign of the real candidates. The relevant data on public administration is merely merely for the establishment of the regulations related to the public administration in the existing I party constitution or regulations, but not for the involvement of the first public administration or election. As such, the preparation of the general data on pro-A list from the F Office does not constitute an act of planning an election campaign.

C) Although GF head personally recommended N as a member of the Gongcheon Management Committee in consultation with the representative of the AI I, the Defendant did not have received any report on the organization of the Gongcheon Management Committee including the selection of the chairman of the Gongcheon Management Committee, and did not give any instruction or approval, and such act does not constitute an election campaign planning act.

D) The election campaign and competition campaign under the Public Official Election Act are strictly divided, and the election campaign refers to the act for election or defeat in the election of public officials, and the act related to election, such as the intraparty competition, does not constitute an election campaign. The above acts such as preparing data related to the general election, such as public opinion polls and pro-A list, and participating in the organization of the Public Official Election Commission are acts that were in the process of the party's official election, and do not constitute an act of participating in the planning of election campaign.

E) Although the President is accompanied by the executive branch, it is permitted to engage in political activities and may become a political party member, unlike general public officials, so the restrictive provisions under the Public Official Election Act should be construed as prohibiting only the act that infringes on the fairness of the election by exercising unfair influence by the President. The acts specified in the planning of the instant election campaign are merely ordinary political party activities of the President, and they do not constitute the planning of the election campaign.

4) The assertion about involvement in the competition campaign

A) Conduct of a public opinion poll to grasp the competitiveness of a specific candidate, solicitation for the withdrawal of a specific candidate or the change of a local constituency, and allowing a specific candidate to immediately use a single number of candidates without passing through a competition, etc. do not constitute a competition campaign, since it is difficult to view that there is the purpose of getting a specific candidate elected or defeat in the process of competition.

B) There is no fact that T points out the shortage of speech or prepares a substitute for speech, etc.

C) The provision punishing a competition campaign is to punish an act involved in the competition campaign in the event that the competition campaign was actually conducted, and such act does not constitute a violation of the competition campaign, in which the competition campaign was conducted at the stage prior to the commencement of the competition campaign, since the competition campaign was conducted at the stage prior to the commencement of the competition campaign, all of the acts at issue are conducted at the stage of the competition campaign.

D) According to the proviso of Article 57-6(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the President, who is a public official, can conduct an intra-party competition campaign for only its members. Therefore, if a competition campaign is conducted for only its members, the competition campaign violation cannot be punished.

B. Determination on the conspiracy relationship between the defendant and the head of F, etc.

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Regarding the public offering relationship

(1) A co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control by the intent of co-processing and the intent of the co-principal. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether the above requirements are met. In order for a co-principal who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime to be recognized as a co-principal, a person may be held liable for the crime as a co-principal depending on whether he/she satisfies the above requirements. In order to be recognized as a co-principal by directly sharing the elements of a crime, taking into account his/her role in the entire crime, the control over the progress of the crime, and the power over the process of the crime, etc., he/she is not merely a

(2) In light of various circumstances, such as the means and form of the crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and place of the crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of the crime, the possibility of contact with others, and anticipated reaction, etc., the conspiracys could have anticipated or sufficiently anticipated that incidental crimes would be derived during the commission of the crime or intended to achieve the purpose, but the conspiracys would have attempted to commit the crime without taking adequate measures to prevent such occurrence, and eventually, if such anticipated crimes were to have occurred, it should be deemed that there was a functional control over not only the initial conspiracys but also the functional control over the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7412, Dec. 23, 2010).

(3) In relation to accomplices who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two persons, there is sufficient combination of two or more persons’ intent to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of intent to do so successively or implicitly among several persons, a conspiracy is established. However, strict proof is not required to acknowledge such conspiracys. However, in a case where a defendant denies a conspiracy, which is a subjective element of a crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of an object. What constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance ought to be reasonably determined based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006; 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011).

B) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the relevant court shall assess the credibility of the statement, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness who is taking an oath before a judge, and the penology of the statement, and the penology of the statement, when the statement made by the witness, including the victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate reliable evidence to deem that the statement made by the witness, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2015Do7423, Nov. 12, 2015).

2) Specific determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court, the crime of this case was derived from the defendant's awareness and intent that the defendant will be elected by a majority of the so-called pro-A persons supported by the operation of state affairs in the general election for smooth performance of state affairs after the HJ. Thus, even if the defendant prepared pro-A list from the Chief G, conducted a public opinion poll in the district where pro-A persons live, conducted a competition and election campaign strategic data, and made them participate in the formation of the Icheon Management Committee, delivered materials relevant to official affairs which are favorable to pro-A people to the Gongcheon Management Committee, and approved, or instructed during that process. Considering the above circumstances, the defendant's status as the chief executive officer of state administration, the relationship between the President and the Chief executive Office, etc., and even if he did not directly bear the action on each individual act, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not participate in the election campaign in this case's planning, public opinion poll and defense counsel's functional control over the whole criminal act.

A) The political situation at the time of the front of the HW line

(1) At the time of the post of the HJ Chief, the I Party, a member of the Egypty Party, had the right to take the initiative between pro-A support for the Defendant, the president, and the Non-AJ, the centering around the AI member. However, the AI member classified as a non-A force, is the representative of the party, and the U.S. member becomes the representative of the IE and was the representative of the IE, it was evaluated that the power of the non-AP member was greater within the IE within the IE.

(2) A non-A member, including the representative of AI, was not in support of the president's state administration, and there was a case where there was a voice against the defendant's government administration. U member was a 'unproofd welfare', and the defendant's policy was criticized as 'Unproofd welfare', and so there was a lot of conflict between the defendant's active duty service non-A member of the I party in relation to the government administration, and the government administration was under the influence of the National Assembly's advancement law at the time of the government administration, and the government administration was under the situation where the public sector's legislation related to labor, public, educational, and financial reform was difficult due to the influence of the National Assembly's advancement law.

(3) From the second half of the year of 2015, the AI representative has announced that the competition method reflecting the public opinion on the I candidate recruitment method was completely introduced. Since the public opinion competition method is a competition method favorable to active duty members with high recognition, the Cheongbu has been judged by the AI representative to have reached a favorable method in the Blue House.

(4) On the other hand, in relation to the HWW’s sales tax, several public opinion surveys were conducted within the Cheongdae, and it was anticipated that the party account for at least a majority of the seats or has secured at least 180 seats. In the Cheongdaedae, the reason why the 4th presidential reform, etc. was found in the reason why the 4th presidential reform, etc. was insufficient to properly manage the state affairs, such as the party, was the support force for the state affairs, was the actual goal of holding the majority of the IW’s seats as pro-A forces for the smooth state affairs in the future. For this purpose, this was discussed based on the fact that pro-A figures were the majority, and based on this, the strategy where pro-A was elected in the HWW group.

B) The process of preparing the data related to the election, such as the duties of the chief secretary and pro-A list;

(1) The Chief Secretary of the Presidential Secretariat, who is in charge of the Chief Secretary Office of the F Secretariat (hereinafter referred to as the “F Chief Secretary Office”), has the F Secretary, AO Secretary, AP Secretary, and Q. The duties of the F Chief Secretary are mostly related to the National Assembly and political parties. The details of the National Assembly response duties of the F Chief Office, which manage and communicate the relationship with the National Assembly and political parties so that legislation, etc. can be smoothly implemented in order to ensure that the National Assembly's policy for national administration can be implemented in a normal condition, while considering the trends of the National Assembly and political parties, the President reported to the President and the Cheong Department, thereby assisting the President to properly respond to political power or make policy decisions.

(2) In a case where the interests of the president are in accord with each other, it would normally be that the president takes the lead of the activities related to the presidential election and the general election at the political party, and that the president takes place to the extent that it is reported or delivered to him. However, at the time of the opening of the HJ, the non-A forces, such as the AI representative, who has different interests with the president or the Cheongdaedae, constitute the first party leader, and the secretariat at the same time was under the influence of the AI representative, and thus, it was inevitable to take charge of the practice of planning the strategy of election of the friendly Park Jong-young in relation to the presidential election and the general election.

(3) As a result, FJ directed F Secretary K et al. to establish a public opinion poll and election strategies for pro-A figures. During that process, FJ head office conducted a public opinion poll and prepared a approximately 4 kind of data such as so-called ‘friendly A list', ‘data on the status of candidates for each local constituency', ‘wide competition and election strategy data', and ‘data on the administration affairs for each local constituency' (the detailed contents of these general data are examined below). First of all, FJ office prepared a ‘friendly list' which examined the status of pro-A figures who are likely to be elected, focusing on the regional constituency of Daegu and North Korea where I support rate for the candidate was high, and prepared the results of the public opinion poll in favor of the candidate for each local constituency, and prepared the results of the public opinion poll in favor of the candidate for each local constituency of election, and prepared the results of the public opinion poll in favor of the candidate for each local constituency of election and prepared the results of the public opinion poll in favor of the candidate for each local constituency of election.

C) Method of processing the Defendant’s business report, etc. concerning reporting and instruction on data related to the general election, such as pro-A list, whether approved or not;

(A) The Defendant received a report without almost receiving any face-to-face report from the chief secretary, etc. in relation to the report on duties in the audience room, and the report delivered to the President from each chief secretary, who is a secretary in charge of AS affairs, was received and delivered to the Defendant. The report delivered to the Defendant was in the form of a report and a kind-friendly report sent by e-mail from each chief office to each chief office, but the report sent to the Defendant was printed out by e-mail and reported to the Defendant, and delivered the envelope to the Defendant without confirming the content of AE. In this regard, AS secretary AE stated to the effect that “AS secretary raises the presidential report from each chief office of each day by e-mail, and raises it to the President more than once a day, and that “IE” was not deducted, one of them.

(B) In addition, after reviewing the report delivered by the Defendant, the Defendant asked the relevant senior secretary directly to ask him/her about the matter, and even if there are parts that require the judgment or direction of the Defendant, the Defendant dealt with by phone calls to the relevant senior secretary. In this regard, AE has been asked about how the relevant senior secretary contact him/her and reported to the President without any instruction or measure, and whether the president instructs him/her. However, with respect to the matters reported to the President in relation to the duties of the Franchisium, there was no time to ask him/her about how the Franchisium reported to him/her. Therefore, in such a case, the Franchisium stated to the effect that “the head of the Franchisium was dying or dying that he/she was dying.”

(2) The details of the report by the President of the Republic of Korea on the overall vessel records, including the list

(A) According to the F Secretary K’s instruction, he summarized and arranged the data related to the general election, such as pro-A list, to AB administrative officers, etc., for the presidential report, and ordered AE to put them in a pro-Japanese bag and deliver them. Before delivering the above data, he notified AE of the report in a pro-friendly form by telephone prior to the delivery of the report, he made a statement to the effect that the above report was particularly a particularly important report, and that it was to prevent the mixture and delivery of the report to the President and to deliver it to the President. The statement was made to the effect that all the data related to the general election, such as “the results of the public opinion poll and pro-A list,” etc., were reported to the Defendant, the President.

(B) An administrative officer AB mainly involved in the preparation of a general election-related data shall be summarized and arranged in a form in which the results of a public opinion poll or election strategy data, etc. should be reported to the President several times according to the direction of G or K, and sealed and delivered them to AE in an envelope. “The important documents from among various materials, such as four documents related to the general election, are known to have been reported. It is known that it is not a lump sum report, but a report has been made according to the flow of time, and it is memory about four to five times.” One of the questions is to be finally examined by G, and one was to be examined and consulted by G, and then asked the President to the effect that the person was aware of the fact that he/she made the report to the Defendant, and how he/she was to prepare and deliver the report to him/her, including a brief report, when he/she was prepared and reported to the Defendant.”

In addition, the administrative officer AD, who was in charge of the public opinion poll, stated that "When preparing a report on the results of the public opinion polls and reporting it to K, K put it to the F chief office. After that, according to the direction of K, K separately prepared a report on the presidential report and delivered it directly to AE."

(C) AS secretary AE also stated that “AB’s report is a result of the public opinion poll and has a friendly document envelope several times. In the case of the friendly report, security is important and security is not directly made by the head of F or the F secretary, and in such a case, I would like to ask AB whether or not this data is available to him/her, and that “AB’s report on friendly relations received from AB all reported to the Defendant.”

(D) As to this, the F Chief G has reported to the effect that “the data on state administration plans after the H presidential election on how the government policies should proceed with according to the results of the overall election,” the list indicating the candidate expected to be elected before the presidential election, and the list indicating the candidate who is likely to be elected, etc., was reported to the effect that “the entire list of candidates was arranged as a result of the presidential election,” and that the list was expressed to the effect that “the candidate indicated that he reported to the Defendant the general election-related data, such as pro-A list, to the effect that he reported to the Defendant,” and that some of them were reported to the Defendant.

(E) As above, the relevant persons, including K, AB, AD, and AE, are making a concrete and consistent statement, and each statement is mutually consistent without contradiction. In light of the reported details, etc. revealed in their statements, G’s statement is sufficiently recognized that all relevant data, such as pro-A list, prepared by the F Chief Office in relation to the H Chief Line, were delivered to the Defendant (On the other hand, G statements that there was no fact that the Defendant filed a report or received instructions from the Defendant regarding the H Chief Line, but this is not only inconsistent with the statement of the relevant persons, such as K, AB, etc., but also is deemed to have made a false statement in order to protect the Defendant, the President, or to exempt him/her from his/her responsibility, in light of the Defendant’s method of handling the duties, the role of the Chief Office in relation to the H Chief Line, and the progress of objective business affairs related thereto. Therefore, G’s statement is difficult to believe)

(3) Whether the defendant's instruction or approval was given

(A) At any time, K reported to the Defendant from time to time during the process of establishing a public opinion poll and election strategy, with respect to the direction and approval of the Defendant’s general election-related reports, and explained from time to time to time to time that the Defendant appears to have any response to it. The F Office and L, M Council members’ meetings were organized and reported to the Defendant, and it was explained to the Defendant, and no special explanation was given if the meeting was approved. Although the Defendant did not directly instruct the Defendant, it was indirectly understood that the Defendant was approved through G, and the Defendant stated that it was impossible for the Defendant to use the Defendant’s first time to obtain an instruction to exclude U.S. from the presidential election district. On the other hand, it was difficult for the Defendant to use the Defendant’s first time to use it as a candidate’s first time to use it as a candidate’s first time and to use it as a candidate’s first time to use it as a candidate’s first time.

(B) AB made a statement to the effect that “G has issued an order to supplement election-related data while mentioning that it is the President’s meaning,” and that “G chief executive officer issued an order to supplement election-related data, such as the result of a public opinion poll, and after reporting the election-related data to the Defendant, G chief executive officer, in the presence of the presidential secretary, and the executive officer, instructed the Defendant to change the pro-A person and the local area in the Daegu metropolitan area and to conduct a public opinion poll,” and that “The G chief intended to keep the documents reported to the Defendant, such as election strategic data, and that he would proceed with the documents only with the documents.”

(C) In addition to the above detailed statement of the persons concerned, ① the act of conducting a public opinion poll and preparing various materials related to the HJ group in the F Chief Office was conducted in an organic manner over a considerable period of time since many people, such as the secretary of the F Chief Office and the administrative officer, etc. ② The materials related to the general election, such as pro-A list, were prepared on the premise of specific implementation, ② the competition and election strategies have been actually implemented in a considerable portion; ③ the matters related to the one-party public election, in itself, are very sensitive political matters, as well as the act of a tangrous act, and thus, it appears that the F Chief is unable to independently determine and proceed with such matters without the direction or approval of the President; ④ In the case of a public opinion poll, it is reasonable to view that the expenses were conducted more than 100 times on a large scale, and the expenses were not appropriated for a large scale of money that was formally organized with the budget, and all of the above acts can not be performed independently in light of the defendant’s explicit or order.

D) Report and instruction on, and approval of, the organization of the Committee on the Management of the Organization of the Organization of the Committee.

(1) Whether N is involved in the appointment of N’s Director

(A) As consistent from the investigation agency to this court, “G at the end of the year 2015 or beginning of the year 2016, at that time G, L, and AU and election-related meetings were held, G designated as N’s member, “A” at that location to the effect that “N’s contact with N’s members is already determined. N’s member is a part of “N’s contact with N’s members”, and L’s member is a well-known part of “N’s house,” and it was f’s own house, and it was f’s own house, so it cannot be the chairman of the Public Administration, without the President’s instruction.” He stated to the effect that “N’s meeting was substantially represented by the president on behalf of the President,” and that “N’s member was not able to speak as a member of the Public Administration and Management Committee,” and that “N’s member of the Public Administration and Management Committee was not able to memory it.”

(B) On this basis, the Chief G made a statement to the effect that “N was recommended by the AI representative to consult with the Defendant on the recommendation of the candidate for the Chairman of the Gongcheon Management Committee, and then recommended 2 to 3 persons including N, as a member of the Gongcheon Management Committee, N was appointed as a member of the Gongcheon Management Committee, before N was recommended, and N was not instructed by the Defendant before he was appointed as a member of the Gongcheon Management Committee, and the result was reported to the Defendant after N was appointed as a member of the Gongcheon Management Committee, and at least recognized that N was recommended as the Chairman of the Gongcheon Management Committee, and on the other hand, there was only a figure about NN Chairman as a member of the NA, and L was called as a 'Wed Do governor'.

(C) Further to the above statement of K, L, G, etc., it is reasonable to view that the following circumstances were revealed by the evidence duly examined by this court, namely, ① the Defendant, a zero-year presidential officer, as well as the first executive officer, to exercise influence over the first executive officer, because of a large number of members of the first executive officer to support the presidential administration within the first executive officer. ② The first executive officer, as well as the second executive officer, determined the first executive officer’s reasonable method such as the first executive officer’s presidential office and the first executive officer’s specific authority to notify the candidates in order to select the first executive officer’s candidate, and it is difficult to find that the Defendant, who was the first executive officer of the first executive officer’s office, reasonably recommended the first executive officer’s opinion to the effect that it was difficult to obtain the first executive officer’s opinion on the appointment of the first executive officer, rather than on the second executive officer’s own opinion.

(2) Whether the organization of the public nature management committee is involved

(A) With respect to the organization of the Committee, F Secret K drafted a proposal of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee. G, with the proposal of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee, the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee on the Management of the Committee.

(B) In full view of the roles and importance of the Committee for the Management of Public Space prior to the statement of K, AB, G, etc., the background leading up to the appointment of the Chairman of the Committee for the Management of Public Space, and the motive leading up to the preparation of total wire-related materials, such as the materials related to the F Senior Office, it is reasonable to view that F. G. was made by delivering its opinion to the Party under the explicit or implied instruction or approval of the Defendant, who is the President.

C. Determination on the part of conducting public opinion polls

Article 86 of the Public Official Election Act prohibits an act that may affect the election even if it does not reach an election campaign for those who are in a public position such as a public official, it is reasonable to view that it does not require the purpose of election campaign, and it falls under this Article immediately when there is such an act by a public official, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004; 20032932, Mar. 25, 200). Article 255 (1) 10 of the Public Official Election Act provides that the public official shall punish those who violate Article 86 (1) 3 of the Public Official Election Act. Article 86 provides that "no public official shall do any act falling under any of the following subparagraphs" under the title "no public official shall do any act," and Article 86 provides that "no person shall do any act falling under subparagraph 3 of the same Article, while investigating or publishing the support degree of the elector for any political party or candidate, and it does not exercise any influence over the political party or candidate separately.

If so, as seen earlier, as long as the Defendant conducted a public opinion poll more than 100 times on the front of the HJ general line through the FM head office and on the support of those who are expected to be a candidate for the political party and I., it is reasonable to view that the Defendant constitutes the “act of investigating the support of the electors for the political party or candidate prohibited by the Public Official Election Act”. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion against this is rejected.

D. Determination on the planning of an election campaign

1) Relevant legal principles

A) "Participation in the planning of, or in the implementation of, an election campaign" as one of the prohibited acts against public officials under Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act refers to an act that does not reach an election campaign to make a person elected or not to be elected, or an act that directly participates in, or directly implements, or instructs or instructs the implementation of, all plans for the efficient implementation of an election campaign. It shall not be deemed that only means an act that participates in the planning for the purpose of carrying out an election campaign with a specific mind in mind (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4069, Oct. 15, 2007).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the main text of Article 58(1) and Articles 2 and 57-2(1) and the main text, structure, legislative intent, etc. of Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the term “election campaign” refers to an act for the success or defeat in an election for a public office, and the act for the success or defeat in an election for a political party to elect a candidate recommended to participate in an election for a public office does not constitute an “election campaign”. However, in fact, an act for the success or defeat in an election for a public office may be deemed an election campaign only in exceptional cases where it is deemed that an act for the success or defeat in an election for a public office is performed in an election for a public office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12172, May 9, 2013).

C) “Election campaign” refers to an act objectively recognized by the intention of promoting an election or defeat of a specific candidate in a specific election. Determination of whether such act constitutes such act ought to be based on the act indicated outside, rather than the intent of the principal agent. Therefore, even though such act is not objectively acknowledged as an act of realizing such intent under the circumstances at the time of the act, it cannot be deemed that the act was in mind of subjective election, or that it does not constitute an election campaign solely because it merely affects an election, or is necessary or favorable for promoting an election. Furthermore, from the perspective of a State agency or a legal expert, determination should be based on the specific situation at the time of the act in general, in particular from the perspective of an elector, rather than on the point of view of the legal meaning and effect of the act. In order to presume that there was such an intention, it should be determined simply on the premise that an elector who experienced the act in question, rather than on the basis of an organic relation between the act in question, has an intention to do so, as well as on the premise that there is an objective motive or omission of an election.

This also can be easily recognized as an election campaign aimed at a specific election through other objective circumstances without express expression if the time when the act was performed begins (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do11812, Aug. 26, 2016).

2) Whether the act of conducting public opinion poll constitutes an election campaign planning

A) According to the evidence duly examined by the court, the following facts can be acknowledged in relation to the conduct of a public opinion poll.

(1) Details of the public opinion poll

With respect to the specific circumstances in which a public opinion poll was conducted in the F senior office, K’s purpose was to establish an election strategy so that one party can occupy a large number of seats of National Assembly members, and to predict the result of the election. In addition, there was a purpose to establish a competitive strategy, such as discovering competitive persons in order to enable pro-A people to win a large number of National Assembly members. In addition, when the first public opinion poll was conducted, a public opinion poll was conducted to analyze the H senior general election, but after that, so that G chief executive officer is able to win a large number of group members, G chief executive officer came to go through the direction of a public opinion poll for the purpose of election of pro-A people. Even after the completion of March 2016, the first public opinion poll was conducted, which was conducted after the completion of the election campaign, due to the need to grasp the region’s public opinion and the need to support AB election campaign, which was also for the purpose of making it necessary for AB election campaign.

한편 F수석실에서 2015년 8월경부터 이 사건 여론조사 실시를 앞두고 만든 여론조사 기획안은 '후보 인지호감도 수준 측정, 현역의원의 강력한 여권 대항마로서의 포지셔닝 구축, 지역정체 관련 현역의원 책임성 거론, 현역 교체여론 확산, 경선 대비 경선 룰에 입각한 경쟁력 측정(지지도 추이 점검), 지역민 needs 측정 등 선거전략 수립, 캠페인 방향 설정' 등을 추진 목적으로 하고 그와 관련한 구체적인 여론조사 실시문항을 예시하고 있었다.

(2) From November 2015 to March 2016, the head office of F, a public opinion poll company, which was operated by V, who had worked as an administrative secretary in the F secretary office, was selected to exclusively conduct a public opinion poll of approximately KRW 1.5 billion for AG. From November 2015 to November 2015, it began to grasp the overall election campaign at the time of commencing a public opinion poll at around November 2015. However, around December 2015 to January 2016, the total number of the public opinion poll was expanded to support the candidates for I, focusing on the regional constituency of Daegu-do and north-do area where I had a high support rate for I, a large scale of the public opinion poll of KRW 1.5 billion. Since March 1, 2016, the public opinion poll was conducted to grasp the strategic measures of the area where the public opinion poll was completed, including the number of local districts where the support was completed.

The government's major policies and other national issues were able to conduct a public opinion poll and the cost of the public opinion poll was also organized in the budget. However, the public opinion poll in this case could not use the budget officially compiled for the government's policy-related public opinion poll because it does not fall under the public opinion poll, and if it is known that the public opinion poll in this case could not use the budget officially compiled for the government's policy-related public opinion poll, it could be a problem if it is discovered that the public opinion poll in this case is conducted for the government's own support plan, and actually used the above budget by creating a false public opinion service contract and a tax invoice as if it is conducted for the government's policy-related public opinion poll, such as 'AV', while conducting a public opinion poll for the government'. Nevertheless, the public opinion poll in Daegu and North Korea area was conducted by expanding it on a large scale, and it was impossible to cope with it only with the budget of the government's office and

(3) Details of the public opinion poll

In the office of the FJ Chief, an intensive investigation was conducted on the candidate support level for the area where the election of candidates for each candidate is certain, such as Daegu and North Korea region and Seoul Western region, and an investigation was also conducted on the repeated support level of candidates in a specific local area for a specific candidate, and on the candidate support level in a specific local area for a specific candidate. Specifically, ① in the case of a candidate support level investigation conducted on the area where the election of candidates for each candidate is certain in Daegu and North Korea region or Seoul Western region, the candidate support level was conducted more than 40 times in total by conducting a public opinion poll more than 5-6 times focusing on 7 constituencies. This was compared with that conducted on 80 other national local constituencies, and all of the candidates subject to the public opinion poll were composed of items that are anticipated to be elected for each candidate in comparison with that conducted on 1 local constituency. ② In the case of a candidate’s repeated support rate in a specific local constituency where the candidate’s support rate was high in a specific local constituency, the candidate’s support rate was conducted by comparing it with that of the candidate’s support rate.

Based on these results of the public opinion poll, the results of the public opinion poll analysis were recorded in the report on the results of the public opinion poll, including the matters of complaints of the voters in the region concerned, whether active duty members are responsible, support candidates for VIP (referring to the President) and support for those candidates among the candidates for Icheon candidates. Also, V and AD obtained the results of the public opinion poll through the mail, and obtained the results of the public opinion poll analysis by suggesting alternatives for the defects of the report on candidates, or by giving the support for the specific candidates, which would be better than that of the specific candidates.

B) Determination

In full view of the process, timing, method, size, contents, etc. of the instant public opinion poll, it is determined that the public opinion poll was conducted in order to use as basic material for the formulation of strategies, by ascertaining the fact that the public opinion poll was conducted in order to efficiently establish and implement a plan to efficiently carry out the election campaign of pro-As in the H-ray, and to predict the result of the election, and to find who is a pro-As whose support rate was high before the H-ray was conducted in order to establish a plan to manage the national administration in the future, rather than to conduct the public opinion poll. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant public opinion poll was conducted as part of establishing and implementing the plan to efficiently carry out the election campaign of pro-As in the H-ray, and that it constitutes an election campaign planning act.

3) According to the evidence duly examined by the court, the following facts can be acknowledged in relation to the overall election data, such as pro-A list, etc.

(1) Specific details of the overall data, such as pro-A list,

(A) The “Re-A list” organized the current status of pro-A person who is possible to be elected in the H general election, and arranged about about 80 pro-A person after the H general election as materials to predict that a number of persons who are likely to be elected as a member of the National Assembly were divided into active National Assembly members and non-members of the National Assembly, and arranged in a way that the name of the person and the area adjacent to the name of the member was entered. From November 2015 to March 2016, it was continuously corrected and supplemented.

(B) The data on the current status of candidates for each local constituency were reflected in the results of the public opinion poll since February 2016, and ① the current status of candidates for each political party's candidate and the results of the public opinion poll on the candidates for each local constituency in preparation for each political party's competition before the completion of the public opinion poll. ② When the public opinion poll is clearly confirmed after the completion of each political party's competition, the candidate specified and arranged the candidates for each political party's candidate for each local constituency, indicating who is the middle-class candidate, and indicating the results of the public opinion poll on the relevant person. In particular, the public opinion poll separately marked that the results of the public opinion poll were indicated, and especially the public opinion poll conducted by the public opinion poll conducted by the public opinion poll, it was arranged in a way of putting or cutting off colors separately for each party's competition.

(C) The term “wide-area competition and election strategy data” includes the following: (a) the details of each region’s competition and election strategy by dividing the metropolitan area, Daegu, North, and Chungcheong zone into a metropolitan area; and (b) the details of each region’s competition and election strategy; and (c) the details of each region’s competition and election district’s competition; (b) the contents of each region’s competition and election district’s explanation as to who is the core for each region’s main region, including: (c) the contents of each region’s competition and election district’s competition; and (d) the contents of each candidate’s election campaign-related methods, such as preparing for an election campaign by taking into account the presidential’s back; and (e) the contents of each region’s election campaign-related measures, such as: (c) the candidate’s participation in the election campaign and election campaign at the seat of each region; and (c) the candidate’s participation in the election campaign-related measures, such as the creative economy and reform of the fourth unit.

(d) The data related to I means that the number of members of the regional public opinion poll should be 10% of the total number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the first time and that the number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 100% of the number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 1000's number of members of the regional public opinion poll, and that the number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 100's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 100's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 100's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 100's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 100's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 10's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 10's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 10's number of members of the regional public opinion poll for the 10's number of members of the public opinion.

(2) the process of preparing and amending the data relating to the group, including the list,

(A) The head office of F analyzed the possibility of election of candidates for each local area based on the results of the public opinion poll on the I and pro-A figures above. G and K, as a pro-A council member in the I and K, have conducted an analysis on the possibility of election of candidates for each local area. G and K, as a council member in the I and K, have been well aware of L L’s members who are well aware of the Seoul and M’s districts in the Seoul metropolitan area, sharing the results of the public opinion poll, and conducted an analysis on the issue of selecting candidates for each local area-friendly competition by gathering the overall election strategy according to the results of the public opinion poll.

(B) The head office verified that certain candidates are pro-A, based on the results of discussions related to the above election, and prepared and revised the 'Maristm'. The head office conducted a public opinion poll for pro-A person who will run in the election, and conducted a public opinion poll again for the possibility of winning the election in the election, and prepared the 'the status of support for all candidates in the local constituency' based on such data'. In addition, the head office selected the center of each local constituency-friendly candidate and the data related to the election campaign, including the results of the public opinion poll and pro-Ma, and the status of support for the local area-friendly candidate and the candidate, were continuously modified and finalized, reflecting the results of discussions regarding the specific election strategy, and prepared and revised the data related to the election campaign by the head office of the Gu/Si office based on the above data, and prepared and revised the data related to the election campaign by the head office of the Gu/Si office and the head office of the Gu/Si office for each local constituency for the purpose of analyzing the data related to the election campaign of the Gu/Si office.

(C) During the aforementioned series of processes, G and K shared the content of the overall election data, such as L and M, and discussed about the election and competition strategies based on such content. Based on such content, G and K continued to have engaged in the process of consultation on the important portion of the election and competition strategies. The results were reflected in the process of preparing and amending the overall election data, such as pro-A list, etc.

(3) As to the process of preparing the data related to the general election, including pro-A list, K had a hedge match with the pro-A group and the non-A group at the time of the front of the H group. However, in order for the AI representative to continuously secure the leadership of the party group after the H group, there was a considerable radius within the Cheongbu group on the ground of favorable public order in favor of many non-A group members in active duty service. In the Cheongbu group, it was very important that pro-A group members after the H group were in charge of preparing the first group of election campaign, and there was no large-scale strategy for the entire group of candidates in the F group of offices, and there was no large-scale public opinion poll for the purpose of preparing the first group of candidates in the F group of offices, and there was no large-scale presidential group of candidates in the process of making the data related to the A group of candidates at the time of signing the presidential group of office and making the data related to the A group of candidates at the time of signing the first group of candidates.

The above statements made by K and AB are not only specific and consistent with the detailed parts that cannot be known without direct experience, but also correspond to each other without mutual inconsistency. They also conform to objective circumstances, such as the current political situation, the detailed contents of the data related to the overall election, and the process of delivering the data related to the overall election, etc.

B) Determination

In full view of the motive and purpose of preparing data related to the general election, such as pro-A list, detailed preparation and revision process, details thereof, etc., in the office of Cheongju F, it is determined that in the office of Cheongju F, pro-A list, pro-A list, and the data on the status of candidates for each local constituency of all elections, etc. prior to the implementation of the general election for the purpose of being elected as a candidate for the general election, it is reasonable to prepare a strategy to prepare a "large-area competition and election strategy data", and furthermore, prepare a "large-area competition and election strategy data" to ensure that pro-A persons can be determined by the standards and methods favorable to being elected as the candidate for the first election. Accordingly, all series of acts related to the preparation of data related to the general election, such as pro-A list, etc., as an act of establishing an implementation plan to efficiently carry out the election campaign purpose of candidates' friendly and election campaign.

4) Whether the defendant's act of participating in the organization of the official election management committee for the first time constitutes the planning of election campaign or not, as seen earlier, the fact that the defendant participated in the appointment of N to the chairperson of the official election management committee for the first time through the F Chief Office, and the fact that the defendant participated in the organization of the official election management committee for the first time. In addition to these circumstances, in order to achieve the objective of majority of the candidate's election in the H Chief, the pro-A person should be recruited as a candidate in the process of first time on the premise that the majority of the candidates should be elected as a candidate for the first time. For this purpose, the official election management committee should adopt a favorable official election system for the first time formed as desired by the defendant. ② It is reasonable to see that many pro-A person have participated in the administration of the official election management committee for the first time prior to the formation of the official election management committee for the first time through the official election management committee for the first time in consideration of the fact that the defendant's participation in the election management committee for the first time in the official election management committee for the first time.

5) The reason why K is limited to the process of public administration or competition and does not fall under the planning of election campaign is consistent. F secretary K consistently stated to the effect that “The purpose of this reason is to establish an election strategy so that I can occupy a large number of seats of National Assembly members, and to predict the result of election is to establish a competition strategy so that I can occupy a large number of seats of National Assembly members,” and the reason is that H is to establish a competition strategy to ensure that pro-A people can be elected as National Assembly members, and the reason is that H-A people are basically to establish an election and competition strategy with consideration to H-A people, but it is a strategy that is in mind of public administration, with the intention of taking into account the success of the election, and that all persons related to public opinion poll, such as the chief executive officer and ABD, who participated in the election, are aware of all relevant persons related to the public opinion poll at the time of making up the relevant public opinion poll and making all relevant persons related to the public opinion poll for the purpose of general public opinion poll at the time of election.”

B) Further to the awareness of the chief executive officer of the FIE as above, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined by this court, namely, ① the public opinion poll conducted to ascertain the entire HIE’s market price, and conducted additional public opinion poll to concentrate on election campaign capacity even after the HIE’s presidential election was completed; ② the public opinion poll of this case is not merely intended for IE but also for other candidates; ③ the public opinion poll of this case prepared methods, strategies, etc. necessary for election campaign in addition to IE’s presidential election, and ④ the chief executive officer participated in the formation of the Public Official Election Management Committee and thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant engaged in the public opinion poll of this case as a candidate for the overall public opinion poll or the overall public opinion poll for the purpose of establishing the public opinion poll’s election campaign, not merely limited to the specific candidate for a specific region, but also limited to the general public opinion poll or the overall public opinion poll’s participation in the process of establishing the public opinion poll, which is the general public opinion poll or the overall public opinion.

6) Determination as to whether ordinary political party activities do not fall under the planning of the election campaign

A) The President, as a member of a political party, is elected by the presidential election and with the recommendation and support of a political party. Therefore, even after the election, the President remains a member of a political party, and maintains the relationship with a specific political party as it is. Unlike general public officials who are unable to become a member of a political party, Article 22(1)1 of the Political Parties Act permits the President to carry out political party activities by prescribing that he/she can maintain his/her membership as a member of a political party. However, the President is not an institution executing the policies of the political party, but a constitutional institution that exercises overall control over administrative authority, and is obligated to realize public interests. The president is the president of a community that is not a part of the people supporting him/her in the past election or a political party, but a member of a community that is organized as a State, and both of the people are the president. The president is responsible for integrating social communities by providing services to the entire people in the first month to the extent of the people supporting him/her. The president’s status as a member of the entire people is embodying the status of a fair election as a general manager of election, and does not permit.

B) However, Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that an election campaign does not constitute an election campaign with respect to a simple opinion and expression of intent on the election, preparation of candidate and election campaign, simple support and opposing opinion or expression of opinion on the recommendation of a candidate, and ordinary political party activities. Ordinary political party activities are activities of a political party that continue to be promoted as long as a political party exists regardless of the time of election such as party members training, etc. to achieve that purpose. In light of the provisions regarding democracy under the Constitution and the important public functions of political party under the Constitution, in principle, they should be freely allowed (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2001, 100Hun-Ma193, May 25, 200). Meanwhile, an election campaign under Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to an objectively and systematically act that is necessary for and favorable to a specific candidate’s election or defeat of election, and in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign or omission of election, the specific method and procedure of the act should be determined as well.

C) If the Defendant, as a party member, has merely expressed an opinion on the election as a party member, this is permissible as part of ordinary political party activities pursuant to Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act. However, as seen earlier, there may be room to view that the Defendant is permitted as part of ordinary political party activities pursuant to Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act. However, in this case, the Defendant, as seen earlier, conducted a public opinion poll closely and systematically with personnel, funds, etc. in a specific political force supporting himself/herself, using the Fanman Office’s manpower, funds, etc. to conduct a public opinion poll, prepare N in a competition and election campaign strategies, and deliver and reflect materials, etc. related to Gongcheon which are favorable to pro-Ga people to the public administration committee. In light of the purpose, circumstance, timing, method, etc. of such act, such act shall be deemed as having an influence on the election, and thus, it shall not be deemed as a mere opinion or an act that may not be considered as having any influence on the election under the Public Official Election Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion.

E. Judgment on the involvement in the competition campaign

1) Relevant legal principles

A) "Election campaign" under Article 58 (1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to all acts that are necessary for, or favorable to, a certain candidate's election or defeat, and that can be objectively recognized with the objective of promoting an election or defeat. Specifically, in determining whether a certain act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined simply by observing not only the name of the act, but also the form of the act in question, i.e., the time, place, method, etc. of the act in question in a comprehensive manner, and whether the act constitutes an "election campaign" under Article 57-3 (1) of the Public Official Election Act. This standard applies likewise to determining which act constitutes an "election campaign" under Article 57-3 (1) of the Public Official Election Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6232, Sept. 25, 2008).

B) Pursuant to Article 57-3 of the Public Official Election Act, a candidate cannot conduct an intra-party competition campaign by means other than those provided for in each subparagraph of Article 57-3(1). The purpose of restricting the method of the intra-party competition campaign is to prevent the excessive competition campaign by preventing the competition of the intra-party competition, as well as to prevent abuse as a legal means of evading the regulations on the prohibition of pre-party election, etc. by changing the intra-party competition campaign into an election campaign. Thus, even if the above holding of the intra-party competition has not become final or before registration as a preliminary candidate, if a person who intends to participate in the intra-party competition conducts an intra-party competition campaign beyond the scope permitted by the Public Official Election Act in preparation for the intra-party competition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8869, Mar. 15, 2007). In addition, even if the holding of the intra-party competition has not become final and has not yet been conducted after it, it constitutes a violation of 13101 primary competition.

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court as to the assertion that the intention for election or defeat cannot be recognized, it is reasonable to view that the act of delivering the data related to election, such as pro-A list, to the Gongcheon Office, or the act of taking advantage of the regional change or appearance to a candidate for pro-A, constitutes an active and planned act that can objectively be recognized as the purpose of enabling a specific pro-A candidate to be elected, by excluding the candidate for a non-A and the act of taking advantage of the local constituency change or appearance to the candidate for pro-A. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is rejected.

(a) deliver to the Gongcheon Management Committee the data relating to the overall line, such as pro-A list, etc.

(1) Before and immediately after the N was appointed as a official in charge of official management, G sent the pro-A list data, etc. to N. The above data contains contents about whether pro-A person can enjoy or support for each constituency, and the Gongcheon Management Committee can find out who is a specific pro-A candidate to be favorable in determining official affairs, etc. through the above data.

(2) G also delivers N’s “related data on official affairs.” The main contents of this data were the telephone public opinion polls methods that can sufficiently reflect the intention of the middle or old-age group in the middle or old-age group, and the multilateral scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scop

(3) On the other hand, the delivery of the foregoing data related to the general election and the adoption of the method of competitive election, even though the fact that the electors do not have a direct influence on the exercise of their voting rights during the course of competitive election, such act constitutes an act of favorably allowing a specific candidate in favor of him/her, so long as the Gongcheon Management Committee determines the map and method itself in favor of the specific candidate, so long as it affects the result of competitive election.

(B) the change in the local constituency and the end of the election of a candidate for a specific pro-A;

(1) G, etc. 2: G 1. G 2. G 2. G 1. K 2. G 2. G 1. G 2. G 2. G 1. G 2. G 2. G 1. G 2. G 2. G 1. G 2. G 1. G 2. G 2. G 1.m 2.m 5 p.m., 207 G 200 G 1m2.m., 25% p.m., 25% of the results of each specific area of public opinion poll to ensure that specific candidates fall short of A 3m. G 1m.m., 5m., 1m., and Q 5m.m., 1m., G 1m., 2m., and Q 1m., 2m., 3m., 5m., 2m., 2m., 3m., Q 1m., and Q 5m.

I recommended to leave Daegu BB.

(2) Meanwhile, during the process of joining a specific pro-A candidate, active duty members classified as pro-A, such as BC, BD, and BE, have been excluded from Gongcheon. This appears to have been argued by N, etc. that if only non-A community members are excluded from Gongcheon, there has been criticism on the exclusion of Gongcheon, and thus, the exclusion of Gongcheon should also be made to members of pro-A community active duty service. In addition, as long as a public opinion is conducted or a public opinion is delivered to the Docheon Management Committee for the candidate replacing the active duty member in the above region, it is also an act of favorable to the specific candidate.

3) As to the part in preparation of T’s campaign speech, K had pointed out the Defendant’s campaign speech on the candidates’ campaign speech at the location along with G around February through March, 2016 with respect to the preparation of “T candidate’s campaign speech.”

G refers to the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to continue to attend the phone, and that it is difficult for him to hold the phone, and that he sent the speech door to G as pro-exclusive plastic bags. At that time, G sent the speech door to be used by the Defendant for his speech, and “A4 paper 3 to 5 forms the text of the A4 paper from the G’s plastic bag, and “I sent a direct speech letter,” and “G sent a speech letter, i.e., whether I sent a speech letter by facsimile, focusing on whether I sent the speech door by communicating with T mobile phone.” The above statement made by K is very specific and consistent from the investigation process to this court, and it is hard to understand if I do not directly experience, and its credibility is high.

In addition to the above statement of K, although G denies that there was no delivery of T’s speech from the Defendant, it is recognized that it made a campaign speech and sent T’s statement that it had been modified and delivered to the side of T by receiving the speech from the Defendant. ② At the time, there was a deep conflict between the Defendant and the Defendant and U, who was the representative of the Party I, in the Daegu AT district, in order to exclude U, U, who was scheduled to go to go to the Daegu AT district of the H large line, as a counter candidate, not only was there a situation in which he left T as well as the situation in which he would be excluded from the process of public tender. ③ The support rate of U in the public opinion poll in Daegu AT district was extremely high, while T’s support rate was continuously lower, in order to get a competition, the Defendant’s act of making it objectively known or insufficient for the purpose of election such as T’s campaign, and the Defendant’s act of preparing T’s act can sufficiently be seen as an act of making the election campaign.

4) As to the assertion that the competition campaign was not implemented or the act before the competition period was conducted, the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that part of the candidates listed in the annexed list 2 of the crime sights did not release the candidate as the success itself was nonexistent, and some of the candidates were decided as candidates by the single-choice, not by the competition, and the act of moving the local constituency to some candidates or conducting a public opinion poll is all conducted before the commencement of the competition campaign.

However, even if certain local districts have not conducted the intraparty competition or conducted public opinion poll in this case, delivery of data related to the public opinion poll, and change of local districts before the intraparty competition is conducted, these series of acts are considered to be a competition act that entails the intention of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate in the intraparty competition, in response to this, given that the specific pro-A candidate prepared a plan to allow a certain candidate to win and lose in the process of the intraparty competition or public competition, in view of all the possibilities of being in the process of the first-party competition including the intraparty competition.

5) As to the assertion that an intraparty competition campaign for only party members can be conducted

A) The main text of Article 57-6(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “No one who is prohibited from conducting an election campaign pursuant to Article 60(1) shall conduct an intra-party competition campaign,” and Article 60(1)4 of the same Act provides that “National Public Officials provided for in Article 2 of the State Public Officials Act and local public officials provided for in Article 2 of the Local Public Officials Act shall, in principle, engage in an intra-party competition campaign in principle, prohibit public officials from participating in an intra-party competition campaign.” However, the proviso of Article 57-6(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “The same shall not apply to cases where a person

B) However, Article 57-6 (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "public officials shall not conduct a competition campaign in the competition campaign in the competition campaign by taking advantage of their status." In particular, the above provision provides that public officials shall use their status, and where a public official violates Article 57-6 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 255 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act applies to imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 6 million won, while Article 57-6 (2) of the Public Official Election Act applies to cases where a public official violates Article 57-6 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 255 (3) 1 of the Public Official Election Act applies and is punished by imprisonment for not more than five years. Thus, Article 57-6 (2) of the Public Official Election Act

applicable to regulations.

C) Therefore, even if a competition campaign is conducted for only members belonging thereto, the public official’s act of carrying out the competition campaign using his/her status cannot be permitted pursuant to Article 57-6(2) of the Public Official Election Act, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected on

Reasons for sentencing

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than seven years and six months in the scope of punishment by law;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) A violation of the Public Official Election Act by any public official who violates the prohibition of intra-party competition campaign;

[Scope of Recommendation Form 3 (Use of Public Officials' Status of Election Campaign)

[Special Persons] A planned and organized crime

(b) Scope of sentence according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for at least one year up to five years and up to six months;

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, who is the head of the State and the head of the administration, elected by the citizens, and was responsible for integrating social communities by exercising the power delegated by the citizens for the whole citizens in accordance with the Constitution and laws and regulations. In particular, as the core of realizing national sovereignty and representative democracy, the citizens directly elect a representative and grant democratic legitimacy, the fairness in election is essential in a democratic state, and the fairness in election is essential above all, and the most preferred responsibility for election is the head of the Constitution and the head of the state administration, who is the general manager of state administration. In addition, our Constitution and laws guarantee the freedom of political parties in order to realize representative democracy, and the President has the responsibility to ensure that democracy can function properly.

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed a series of crimes, such as conducting a public opinion poll in a planned and organized manner by taking advantage of the position of the President in order to dismiss a specific force and select the people who support himself as a National Assembly member on the grounds that he/she differs from his/her own view within the front line of HJ, and conducting a public opinion poll and establishing an election and competition strategy. They committed a series of crimes, such as participating in the formation of the party public opinion poll and transmitting the handling materials favorable to the ability to support himself/herself to the Gongcheon Management Committee.

The Defendant’s act is an abuse of the authority granted by the people by neglecting the constitutional duty as the President, and thus, it does not seem that the nature of the offense is somewhat weak in that it damages representative democracy, which is the fundamental value of our Constitution, and makes the autonomy of a political party circumvents. Although the Defendant’s act distort the intention of the voters and has a risk of seriously damaging the freedom and fairness of election, the Defendant is consistent with the doctrine that it is difficult to accept that the Defendant does not deny the fact that he did not direct or approve the instant crime, or that he does not merely deny the fact that he did not have given consent to the instant crime, or that he was aiming for reference in carrying out national affairs by analyzing the printing circumstances of the election. Furthermore, the Defendant appears to have not complied with his responsibility for subordinate public officials who did not follow his direction without complying with the investigation by the investigative agency as well as the attendance at this court.

Considering these various circumstances, it is necessary to impose strict liability on the defendant for the criminal facts.

However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime for the purpose of promoting the state affairs by promoting the cooperation and support of the president and promoting the policies pursued by him. On the other hand, the instant crime appears to have been focused on allowing pro-A candidate to be recruited as a candidate at the first time of the official election of the I. In addition, it seems that it did not go beyond that of the election campaign that directly affects the voting of the voters at the stage of the election campaign of the actual H-A-ray election. In addition, it is necessary to consider the fact that the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime as favorable to the Defendant.

As such, all sentencing factors expressed in the trial process of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, etc., shall be determined as ordered in full view of all the sentencing factors that are unfavorable or favorable to the defendant.

Judges Lee Jong-soo

Judge Kang Han-soo

In general, ‘A' is called ‘A' for convenience when referring to human beings.

2) in the first place those persons who support or share the views with the accused in the performance of the state affairs of the accused; hereinafter these persons;

The term ‘child-A' for convenience is referred to as ‘child-A'.

3) If, for example, the elector supporting J party may participate in the competition of the candidate, the candidate may be elected in the future.

the candidate may grow up to be selected by an uncompetitive person, and as a result, the candidate B is more than the candidate per actual A.

Rather, it would distort the result of the first competition by selecting a candidate who is not competitively competitive even though it is judged that there is more competitive;

It is considered that it is possible to do so, and it is called a dynamic selection.