The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000, and the fine of KRW 10,000,00, and the fine of KRW 2-C, and the judgment of KRW 2-3,00,00, in respect of the crime of KRW 1-A, B, and Article 2-A, of the Local Education Autonomy Act (each violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act).

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) As to the portion of printing cost

(1) The Defendant did not make a false entry in evidential documents and accounting report (hereinafter referred to as " evidential documents, etc.") and did not have intended to obtain money equivalent to the amount of printing expenses actually paid by using them as election expenses, and there is no fact that he conspired with Nonindicted 1 in relation thereto.

② Article 49(1) of the Political Funds Act provides that a person shall be punished in cases where a false statement is made in an accounting report for election expenses “ without justifiable grounds.” However, Nonindicted 1’s determination of the provisional printing amount between Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 2 as KRW 121,00,000 (including additional tax) and the actual printing amount is agreed to determine through subsequent settlement of accounts, and it cannot be said that a false report has been made in accordance with a provisional contract without settlement of accounts. In addition, it is deemed that there is a justifiable reason.

③ The election commission’s compensats for the election expenses spent for the election campaign within the ordinary transaction price. As such, there is no causation between Nonindicted 1’s filing an application for compensating for the amount of KRW 121,00,000 and the election commission’s compensating for the amount of KRW 82,720,424, which is the ordinary printing cost. In addition, Nonindicted 1’s payment of KRW 83,000 as the printing cost under the settlement process with Nonindicted 2 is larger than the amount that was paid by Nonindicted 2, as alleged by Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 2’s actual printing cost of KRW 84,30,000 (= printing cost of KRW 70,000 + value-added tax of KRW 11,00,000 under a false contract + global income tax of KRW 3,30,000,000, which is more than the amount that should have been actually paid. As such, the Defendant cannot be said to have by deceiving the election commission.

B) Regarding the part on the cost of banner

The defendant did not make a false entry in evidentiary documents, etc., and did not have intended to obtain money more than the actual expenses for banners by using it as election expenses, and there is no fact that he conspired with the non-indicted 1 in relation thereto.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (the 2 years of suspended sentence and the 5,000,000 won of fine in August) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

Pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act and Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 18(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act should be separately sentenced to Article 1-A, (b), and Article 2-A, (b), and (b) of the judgment of the court below among the facts charged in this case (each violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act), and Article 1-C, of the judgment of the court below, and Article 2-C, of the judgment of the court below (each violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act). However, since the judgment of the court below did not clearly specify them in the disposition, it violated Article 49(1)

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

1) The printing cost portion

A) As to the assertion that there was neither a criminal act nor a conspiracy with Nonindicted 1

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, Nonindicted 2’s statement that Nonindicted 2, upon the Defendant’s request, prepared and sent the evidentiary documents, etc. related to the printing price differently from the actual ones, is reliable. In light of the status and role of the Defendant, the relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted 1, and other relevant evidence, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 1, entered false matters in evidentiary documents, etc., and sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant received excessive preservation for election expenses by using it.

① On June 2, 2010, Nonindicted 2, the representative of “○○○○ Printing” that entered into a printing contract with the Defendant in relation to the official gazette, pledge collection, etc., was already examined as to the facts charged in this part of the charges (at the time of being subject to a disposition of free suspicion by the prosecution). However, the said statement was made to the effect that “the printing amount was not excessive,” but the said statement was made by itself, and was consistent with the following contents from the prosecutor’s investigation around July 24, 2014 to the trial.

On May 1, 2010, the Defendant found it on the “○○○○ Printing” with Nonindicted Party 1. At the time, the Defendant at the office, “(printed) unit” was detached from Nonindicted Party 2, and the tax invoice was defective by KRW 110 million, and the remaining money was returned to Nonindicted Party 1.”

(C) Although the printing price offered by the Defendant was less than KRW 90,000,00,000, which was the original printing price proposed by the Defendant at the time, the Defendant or Nonindicted Party 1 proposed that “When the election is held in the Superintendent of the Office of Education, the “○○○○ Printing” will be registered with the Office of Education and will have it work at the Office of Education,” and promised to publish official gazettes, pledges, etc. at the price presented by the Defendant at the Office of Education in the future (the amount of actual printing price agreed between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 is examined later).

As a result, Nonindicted 3, who is an employee of ○○○ Printing, prepared a written request from the Defendant on May 3, 2010, respectively, and in fact received KRW 70 million from the Defendant’s side, but the tax invoice and the said written request were written in the amount of KRW 110 million,00,000,000, the total amount of KRW 121,000 and value-added tax, and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, as a printed price, in accordance with the contract.

After the clibage, the people including the related parties of the election commission were asked to “whether they receive the printing price from the defendant” and continued to be asked to Nonindicted 2. Accordingly, Nonindicted 2 said that Nonindicted 1 would have received the printing price softened in the document, and that it would be safe for Nonindicted 1 to arrange the printing price softened, and that it would return it again if the printing price softened is remitted.”

After two years from the end of the election of this case at the epoch of the epoch 2012, Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 1 were discussed to adjust the difference between the amount actually received and the amount actually paid in the documents, and the amount of KRW 51 million was transferred from April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013 by Non-Indicted 2. Non-Indicted 2 transferred the above amount of KRW 29 million to the account in the name of Non-Indicted 4 (representative in the name of △△ enterprise in which Non-Indicted 1 actually operated) designated by Non-Indicted 1 during several times from June 20, 2012 to May 28, 2013, and the remaining KRW 20 million was returned to Non-Indicted 1 in cash.

㉳ 공소외 2는 2010년경 검찰 조사를 받을 당시에는 공소외 1이 자신에게 허위 진술을 하도록 강요하였고, 사실대로 말하면 구속된다고 하여 겁이 나서 ‘인쇄비용에 문제가 없다’며 거짓말을 하였는데 그렇게 거짓말로 조사를 받는 것이 힘들어서 건강이 나빠지기까지 하였다. 그런데 2014년 다시 검찰의 출석 요구에 응하여 조사를 받게 되었을 때 검찰에서 공소외 1이 2012. 4. 14.경부터 2013. 2. 18.경까지 공소외 2에게 5,100만 원을 교부한 계좌내역을 제시하며 물어보았고, 이에 더 이상 감출 수 없다고 생각하여 사실대로 말하게 된 것이다.

② From the investigative agency to the lower court, Nonindicted 5, who was in charge of the Defendant’s performance team and camping general affairs at the instant election, entered the name of “○○○○○ Printing” along with the Defendant and the driver of the vehicle from May 2010. At the time, Nonindicted 2, at the same time, expressed the number on the first floor of the instant factory, and presented it twice to the Defendant, indicating the above number. The number is 7,000 and 100 million. Nonindicted 2, who stated the said two numbers in a box, stated the Defendant “I would be able to do so.” Meanwhile, Nonindicted 2, who stated that the Defendant was hick in a printing box, stated that Nonindicted 5 did not have any 7,000 won and KRW 10,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant. However, it conforms with Nonindicted 5’s statement that there was a double statement that there was a difference between the above two parts of the printing contract.

③ Nonindicted 3, an employee of ○○ printing, testified that “Around May 2010, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 visited Nonindicted 2 to discuss regarding the production of promotional materials, and at the time, they have been directly stored in the second floor through coffee, so the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 shared with them, and Nonindicted 1, who is an employee of ○○○ printing, have been memory several times thereafter.” Nonindicted 6, who is another employee of ○○○○ printing, also stated that “Around May 2010, Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 3, who was enrolled in the second floor office, divided conversations between Nonindicted 2 and 20.” Nonindicted 1 also made a statement that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 20 at the time of undergoing an investigation with Nonindicted 20, stating that “The Defendant concluded a printing contract with Nonindicted 2, 2010, along with Nonindicted 2, as Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1 stated that the Defendant concluded a printing contract with Nonindicted 2, 2010.”

④ Nonindicted 2, while engaging in the printing business for not less than 20 years, supplied printed matters to the Office of Education prior to the instant election. Nonindicted 2 concluded a contract with the Office of Education from December 29, 2010 to October 17, 2013, including the supply of printed matters, etc. after the Defendant was elected as the Superintendent of the Office of Education, and delivered printed matters. This is consistent with Nonindicted 2’s statement that the Defendant or Nonindicted 1 had concluded a printing contract with the lower amount of money at the time of the instant election, by proposing that the Defendant or Nonindicted 1 would have had the Office of Education work in the future.

⑤ Nonindicted 2 denied the fact that Nonindicted 2 drafted a tax invoice, etc. by withdrawing printing costs in the prosecutor’s investigation around 2010. However, in the process of the prosecutor’s investigation in around 2014, the prosecutor presented and urged the account transaction details between Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, which led to the reversal of Nonindicted 2’s statement because it was difficult to maintain the existing statement. In light of the background leading up to the reversal of the statement, there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of Nonindicted 2’s statement, and Nonindicted 2 did not seem to have any intention to specifically dismiss the Defendant.

④ The “report on the revenue and expenditure of political funds” submitted by Nonindicted Party 1 to the election commission refers to Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that the printing price is KRW 121 million, and KRW 70 million, KRW 51 million, and KRW 51 million, in fact, Nonindicted Party 2 paid KRW 70 million with printing costs, and KRW 51 million with Nonindicted Party 2 paid KRW 50 million with printing costs, and was not paid to Nonindicted Party 2 for about two years after the period of the instant election campaign and the subsequent two years. As such, it is consistent with Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that written a tax invoice, etc. of the printing price.

7) At around 2010, Non-Indicted 7, who is the Defendant’s birth together, discovered and seized a mix stating the phrase “Fix - 70 million won printing value”. In this regard, Non-Indicted 7 was investigated by the prosecution around 2010 and stated that “the aggregate amount of printed materials up to that time is the same as the amount.” In the prosecutor’s investigation in 2014, the statement was made to the effect that “The meeting was written, the meeting was almost every day, and the Defendant was in charge of the meeting.” According to the contents of the mix and the statement of Non-Indicted 70,000 won at the time of the election of this case, the Defendant appears to have been aware that the printing price in this case was KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and it is difficult to accept the above mix 70,000,000,000 won, written by the prosecutor’s office.”

8) The Defendant left Nonindicted Party 1 to whom it was responsible for accounting of election expenses, etc., and stated that he/she was unable to receive daily reports on individual contracts with Nonindicted Party 1, and that the total amount of election expenses does not exceed the statutory limit, and that he/she was reported to the election commission, etc. However, Nonindicted Party 1 stated in the prosecutorial investigation that “if he/she reported to the Defendant compared the unit prices to the business entities, the final decision on printed materials manufacturers was made by the Defendant,” and Nonindicted Party 7 also stated that the Defendant was finally decided on whether to disburse election expenses in the prosecutorial investigation around 2010 (this investigation record 770 pages), and that Nonindicted Party 1 stated that Nonindicted Party 2 decided to the effect that he/she was the Defendant at the time of the investigation by the prosecutorial office around 2014 (this investigation record 7373), and that Nonindicted Party 5’s report on revenues from election expenses was made by Nonindicted Party 1 to 2014, which was the final decision of the lower court.

B) As to the assertion that a false entry does not constitute an accounting report under the Political Funds Act

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the accounting report as stipulated in such provisional contract does not constitute a violation of the Political Funds Act, on the premise that the printing contract entered into with Nonindicted Party 2 is a provisional contract that is planned to settle ex post facto, but the following circumstances, namely, ① Nonindicted Party 2 only prepared tax invoices at the Defendant’s request in connection with the printing contract of this case as KRW 12,100,000 (including value added tax) and stated that, as alleged by the Defendant, the contract amount shall be KRW 12,100,000,000, but not a provisional contract to settle ex post facto. ② Nonindicted Party 2 supplied all the election campaign bulletins (as 12,440,500), written campaign promises (as 4,500), campaign posters (as 50,000), campaign posters (as 1,750,000) and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, which can be recognized as having no intention to pay ex post facto changes in the amount at the time of the contract of this case.

C) As to the assertion that the deception or causation of fraud is not recognized

(1) The Defendant, regardless of the amount of a candidate’s application for the preservation of election expenses, made up for the election expenses within the scope of ordinary transaction price. As such, the Defendant asserted that there is no causation between the Defendant’s false entry, such as evidential documents, and the payment of compensation for election expenses by the election commission. However, in compensating for the election expenses, the election commission made up for the election expenses only within the amount actually paid. As such, insofar as the Defendant received the preservation of KRW 82,720,424, which is the amount higher than the amount actually paid by submitting evidentiary documents in falsity, the Defendant’s deception

(2) 또한, 피고인은 공소외 1이 공소외 2와 정산과정을 거치면서 공소외 2에게 5,100만 원을 지급하였다가 1,300만 원을 돌려받지 못하여, 실제 인쇄대금으로 지급한 돈은 8,300만 원이므로, 피고인이 그 보다 적은 82,720,424원을 선거비용으로 보전받은 이상 피고인이 선거관리위원회를 기망하여 선거비용 보전금을 편취한 것으로 볼 수 없다고 주장하나, 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 공소외 1은 부풀린 인쇄대금을 모두 지급한 것과 같은 외형을 만들기 위해 ⓐ 공소외 2의 계좌로 2012. 4. 14. 500만 원, 2012. 4. 18. 400만 원을 송금하였다가, 공소외 2로부터 2012. 4. 24. 900만 원을 현금으로 지급받았고(공판기록 514쪽), ⓑ 공소외 2의 계좌로 2012. 4. 24. 900만 원을 송금하였다가, 공소외 2로부터 2012. 6. 18. 1,000만 원을 현금으로 지급받았으며(공소외 1은 위와 같이 지급받은 1,000만 원을 2012. 6. 18. 자신의 모 공소외 8 계좌에 입금하였다가, 같은 날 자신의 계좌로 송금하였고, 같은 날 다시 공소외 2의 계좌로 송금한 것으로 보인다), ⓒ 공소외 2의 계좌로 2012. 6. 18. 1,000만 원을 송금하였다가, 공소외 2로부터 자신이 지정한 공소외 4의 계좌로 2012. 6. 20. 1,000만 원을 송금받았고, ⓓ 공소외 2의 계좌로 2012. 6. 22. 900만 원을 송금하였다가, 공소외 2로부터 위 공소외 4 계좌로 2012. 7. 30. 1,000만 원을 송금받았으며, ⓔ 공소외 2의 계좌로 2012. 7. 31. 800만 원을 송금하였다가, 공소외 2로부터 위 공소외 4 계좌로 2013. 2. 12. 600만 원을 주1) 송금받았고, ⓕ 공소외 2의 계좌로 2013. 2. 18. 600만 원을 송금하였다가, 공소외 2로부터 위 공소외 4 계좌로 2013. 5. 28. 300만 원을 송금받는 등(공소외 2는 공소외 1로부터 300만 원 내지 1,000만 원의 돈을 지급으면 받은 만큼 다시 공소외 1에게 돌려주는 식의 금전거래를 하였던 점, 공소외 2는 돈을 늦게 돌려주면 공소외 1이 계속 전화하여 ‘교육청 일 안할 겁니까’라고 말하여 전부 돌려 줄 수밖에 없었다고 하는 점, 공소외 2가 받은 돈을 돌려보내지 않으면 공소외 1도 더 이상 돈을 주지 않았던 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어, 앞서 본 바와 같이 공소외 2가 반환한 4,800만 원 이외에 나머지 300만 원도 공소외 2가 현금 등으로 반환한 것으로 보인다) 공소외 2는 공소외 1로부터 송금받은 5,100만 원을 모두 반환한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이와 다른 전제에 선 피고인의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

(3) Furthermore, according to the non-indicted 2’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that, even if following the non-indicted 2’s assertion, the actual printing price is KRW 84.3 million (i.e., printing price of KRW 70 million + value-added tax of KRW 11 million under false contracts + global income tax of KRW 3.3 million). Therefore, insofar as the Defendant was compensated for election expenses, insofar as it was compensated for less than KRW 82,720,424, the Defendant’s deception by deceiving the election commission, it cannot be deemed that he

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual price for a printing contract concluded between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 2 is KRW 70 million, excluding value-added tax, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.

① As seen earlier, around May 2010, Nonindicted 2 agreed that the Defendant sought ○○○ printing and agreed that “the last unit shall be detached of KRW 70 million, and the tax invoice shall be KRW 110 million.” In preparing tax invoices, estimates, etc. on the basis of the amount distributed after Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, who entered into a tax invoice and estimates, shall be KRW 110 million in total as value-added tax, and KRW 121 million in value-added tax, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 2 entered the printing price of KRW 100 million in total, KRW 110 million in value-added tax, it appears that the amount of value-added tax actually agreed with the actual printing price refers to an amount that does not include value-added tax.

② According to the quotation on April 21, 2014, Nonindicted Party 2 submitted to the first Defendant’s election office, if the pledge book is 50,000 won, the printing price is 90,100,000 won (excluding value-added tax). From the above amount, the printing price is 70,000,000 won, which was agreed to reduce approximately KRW 20,000,000,000,000 is not included in value-added tax

③ After Nonindicted 2 agreed on the printing price of KRW 70 million, Nonindicted 2 appears to have requested payment from Nonindicted 1 on the premise that the Defendant would pay the value-added tax as a matter of course.

On the other hand, Non-Indicted 2 also requested non-Indicted 1 to pay value-added tax of KRW 1,00,000, global income tax of KRW 3,300,000,000 for unfilled printing, but there is no evidence to prove that the above amount is borne by the defendant, and even if the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount, the above amount cannot be deemed to be included in the printing cost under the printing contract of this case (it is not possible for the defendant to claim compensation for election expenses because the value-added tax is KRW 11,00,000,000,000,000 won for unfilled printing). The defendant's assertion that the actual printing cost exceeds KRW 77,00,000,000,000 for value-added tax of KRW 70,000 is without merit.

Therefore, the compensation for printing expenses that the defendant acquired by means of false evidentiary documents, etc. from the election commission shall be 5,720,424 won [The compensation for election expenses = 82,720,424 won - (the printing cost + 70,000,000 won + value-added tax + 7,000,000 won]. The part of the compensation for printing expenses in excess of the above recognized amount constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

2) The cost of banners

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant made a false statement in collusion with Nonindicted 1 on the evidential documents, etc. in collusion with Nonindicted 1, and obtained the excessive preservation of election expenses by using it, if he/she took the position and role of the defendant in the election of the superintendent of education of this case, his/her relationship with the defendant and Nonindicted 1, and other relevant evidence.

① At around 2010, Nonindicted 9, the representative of the “Seoul Metropolitan Government Advertising”, who entered into a contract for production and installation of banner, was indicted for violating the Political Funds Act in relation to this part of the facts charged, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 2, 2011. However, Nonindicted 9 himself/herself appears to have made a false statement in the course of investigation at around 2010, and consistently made the following statements from the time when he/she was investigated by the prosecution to the lower court.

On April 1, 2010, the time of the instant election, the Defendant came to know at the first funeral hall of Ulsan, and around that time concluded a contract with Nonindicted Party 1 for the production and installation of banner necessary for the instant election. At the time, Nonindicted Party 9 proposed to Nonindicted Party 1 to manufacture and supply banner at KRW 8,000 per square meter, and as the amount would be, Nonindicted Party 1, who completed the delivery of banner from April 12, 2010 to May 25, 2010, demanded Nonindicted Party 9 to make a estimate calculated at KRW 21,00 per square meter ( KRW 12,00 per square meter in the case of a distance banner).

(2) On May 28, 2010, Non-Indicted 9 issued a written estimate, tax invoice, and contract, etc. calculated by Non-Indicted 1’s 21,00 won per square meter (12,00 won per square meter in the case of a distance banner) to Non-Indicted 1. On May 27, 2010, Non-Indicted 9 received KRW 45,656,600, which is the amount stated in the written estimate from the Defendant to the foreign exchange bank account in his own name, from the Defendant. On the other hand, Non-Indicted 9 was called as “non-Indicted 9:04 on the same day before 09:04 on the same day, Non-Indicted 9 sent money from the Defendant to Non-Indicted 1’s telephone, Non-Indicted 7, who is the Defendant’s relative student, to whom Non-Indicted 208, 204 won and 10 account numbered on May 28, 2010.

In the process of being investigated as a violation of the Political Funds Act with respect to the above remittance, Nonindicted 9 consistently stated that “ Nonindicted 7, a relative student of the Defendant, asked for a loan of money from Nonindicted 7, and transferred KRW 21,228,80 to an account with Nonindicted 10, which Nonindicted 7 informed, around May 28, 2010.” The reason why Nonindicted 9 made such statement at the time was that Nonindicted 9 received a request from the Defendant’s first police officer on August 2 through 3, 2010, for “a request to make a statement by lending money from Nonindicted 7, a relative student of the Defendant.”

On September 2010, when the investigation was in progress with the above prosecution, Non-Indicted 9 found the defendant as the superintendent of the Office of Education in the Seocho-gu Office of Education in early September 2010. At that time, the defendant told that "I are not political parties, but professors. I believe I will believe I will be able to conclude several supply contracts with the Seocho-gu Office of Education." At that time, Non-Indicted 9 was accepted that I would make it possible for the defendant to conclude several supply contracts with the Seocho-gu Office of Education. However, even though Non-Indicted 9 was unable to comply with the commitment to conclude supply contracts with the Seocho-gu Office of Education in the end one year after being sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Political Funds Act, the defendant was not in compliance with the promise to conclude the supply contracts with the Seocho Office of Education, and recently, it was no longer necessary to reverse the defendant's statement on the ground that he was able to receive money from the company and that the company was able to do the relevant construction works.

② The sales books of this case prepared by Nonindicted 9 do not include 45,656,600 won transferred from the Defendant as the price for banner, but include 21,228,800 won paid by Nonindicted 9 to Nonindicted 7, and 25,379,400 won (=21,228,800 won + 4,600 won + 4,600 won) as the remaining amount after deducting the value-added tax amount from the sales amount of KRW 20,27,000, KRW 2000, KRW 2067,000, KRW 4067,000, KRW 6067, KRW 4065, KRW 700, KRW 400, KRW 606, KRW 75,000, KRW 406, KRW 605, KRW 7065, KRW 7006, KRW 7005, KRW 605,00.

③ In addition, at around 09:04 on May 27, 2010, Nonindicted 9 made a telephone call to the Defendant for about two-thirds of 20 seconds, Nonindicted 9 made a concrete statement on the reason that, before remitting KRW 21,228,80, the difference of KRW 21,28,00 from Nonindicted 7 around May 28, 2010 on the following day, Nonindicted 9 asked Nonindicted 7 to the effect that he was aware of the location of the office of ○○○○ Advertising (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Advertising”).

④ According to the result of the inquiry into the currency between Nonindicted 9, the Defendant, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 1, on May 27, 2010, Nonindicted 9 made approximately two minutes and twenty seconds call from the Defendant on May 27, 2010, around 09:04; Nonindicted 9 made a phone call to Nonindicted 16:16, immediately before the day he received the supply amount from the Defendant; Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 1 sent a text message to Nonindicted 1; Nonindicted 9 sent a text message around 16:24 on the same day; Nonindicted 9 transferred Nonindicted 21,28,80 won to Nonindicted 10; Nonindicted 9 sent a text message to Nonindicted 1 on May 28, 2015; Nonindicted 13:47 on the same day; and on the same day, on the same day, on the same day, around 16:57; and on the same day, on the same day, on the same day, on the same day, around 13:57:197.

⑤ As above, Nonindicted 9’s statement is consistent in its contents from the prosecution investigation around October 2014 to the time when the Defendant makes a statement directly. It is difficult to find out circumstances to mislead the Defendant in the course of re-afusing the statement different from that of 2010. In the sales ledger prepared by Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 24,427,600 won (i.e., the sales amount of KRW 20,27,000 + tax amount of KRW 4,150,60) as alleged by the Defendant, Nonindicted 6’s statement was also indicated in Nonindicted 9’s statement in the name of Nonindicted 20, around May 27, 2010; Nonindicted 20, the difference between the sales amount and the tax amount was determined to have been calculated; Nonindicted 9’s statement in the name of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 7’s statement in the name of Nonindicted 9 was also found to have been returned to the Defendant’s office’s money transfer amount on the date of this case’s statement.

④ Nonindicted 7 stated at the lower court that the above KRW 21 million was borrowed from Nonindicted 9. However, as seen earlier, Nonindicted 7’s prosecutorial investigation in 2014 stated that the Plaintiff was returned KRW 21 million with the difference, but the lower court did not consistent with its statement, such as the reversal of the statement as above; Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 7 did not prepare a loan certificate regarding the above money; there was no agreement on the maturity of payment, interest, etc.; thereafter, Nonindicted 9 did not demand or demand reimbursement to Nonindicted 7; Nonindicted 9 had already calculated the cost to return the money to Nonindicted 7; Nonindicted 21,28,80 won to prepare the money to be returned to Nonindicted 7 at the time of the deposit of the banner; in light of the fact that the above actions by Nonindicted 9 cannot be seen as an act of normal lending money; Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 7 cannot be seen as having first lent the money to Nonindicted 7 up to KRW 108,000 on May 27, 2018.

④ Around May 31, 2010, Nonindicted 7 transferred money KRW 21,228,80,00 from Nonindicted 7’s account to Nonindicted 9 via Nonindicted 10’s account, Nonindicted 7 withdrawn KRW 20 million, which is most of which, on or around June 1, 2010, in cash, at the front of the viewing in the vicinity of the election office. In light of the fact that the said money was transferred through Nonindicted 7’s personal account and most of the money were withdrawn in cash within a short period, it appears that Nonindicted 7 attempted to conceal the place of use of the money that Nonindicted 7 received from Nonindicted 9. Moreover, Nonindicted 7’s money remittance and withdrawal was transferred to Nonindicted 7’s personal account in relation to Nonindicted 7’s election, as Nonindicted 7 stated in the prosecutor’s office in the process of investigating Nonindicted 7 in 2014.

④ Even if Nonindicted 9 did not directly consult with the Defendant, who is not Nonindicted 1, directly, on the production cost of banner, the Defendant appears to be unable to speak Nonindicted 9 before remitting the amount to be supplied to Nonindicted 9, who is Nonindicted 1, if the Defendant did not receive the specific amount of money to be supplied for banner, etc. from Nonindicted 1, in light of the following circumstances: (a) Nonindicted 9 appears to have exercised the final decision right; and (b) in relation to the selection of each production company in the instant election and the disbursement of election expenses, etc., the Defendant was aware of the fact that Nonindicted 1 reported the relevant contents in entirety; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was false documentary evidence, etc. by excessively preserving the difference as election expenses by using documentary evidence, etc., which was recorded as such.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, a public offering does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the doctors is made successively or implicitly through several persons, a public offering relationship is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct of the crime, even if there was a person who did not directly participate in the conduct of the crime, he/she shall be held accountable as a co-principal for the other's conduct. Such public offering may be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules even if there was no direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 2004).

In light of the following circumstances as well as the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

① The details of telephone calls at the time of the instant case and the details of account transfer are consistent with the details of receipt and return of the price for a banner, which was verified by objective materials, including Nonindicted 9.

(a) The Defendant, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 10 made a monetary or account transfer as follows:

A mark contained in the main text - around 09: 04 on May 27, 2010 - Nonindicted 9: around 20, around 201: around 20: - Nonindicted 2, around 205 on May 27, 2010 - Nonindicted 9: around 25: around 20, around 205 (round 20 seconds) Nonindicted 2, around 205 (round 20: 1:3:4 on May 27, 2010), Nonindicted 9 sent Nonindicted 2, around 204, around 204, around 205 (round 25: 1:1:4 on May 28, 2010), Nonindicted 2, around 204, around 204, around 205, around 201, to Nonindicted 1:5:3:4 on May 28, 2010, around 207:

(b) Nonindicted 9 was investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office, and asked the Defendant at the above time on May 27, 2010, with regard to the circumstances in which the phone calls, etc. were made, Nonindicted 9 sent a text message to Nonindicted 1 that he was called “on May 27, 2010,” and that the Defendant called “on May 27, 2010,” and that he was at any time to pay the money by phone to Nonindicted 1, and that he was audited by Nonindicted 1 at any time on May 28, 2010 following the day, Nonindicted 7 sent a text message that he was audited by phone to Nonindicted 7 at any time. The same was stated to the effect that “on May 28, 2010, Nonindicted 7 asked Nonindicted 7 at any time and explained the location of his office at any time, and again, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he was unable to find an accurate location by phone to him (the same shall also apply).

(c) On May 28, 2010, Nonindicted 7 made a phone call to Nonindicted 9 on or around 13:10 on May 28, 2010, when Nonindicted 7 made a phone call to Nonindicted 9. On or around 14:41, 2010, Nonindicted 7 made a phone call to Nonindicted 10. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 7 made a phone call to Nonindicted 9 on or around 13:10 on May 28, 2010, at around 13:52, immediately before Nonindicted 9 visited Nonindicted 9’s office, and then made a phone call to Nonindicted 9 on or around 13:52, when Nonindicted 9 visited Nonindicted 9’s office, and in this regard, Nonindicted 7 made a phone call to Nonindicted 9 and made a phone call to Nonindicted 13:10 on or around 13:10, and Nonindicted 13:41 on May 28, 2010.

② At the time of investigation conducted by the prosecution in around 2014, Nonindicted 7 stated, “I do not have the authority to determine what kind of goods is needed to purchase the goods needed to do so to do so to the public prosecutor?” Nonindicted 7 stated, “I do not have the authority to do so to do so. I do not do so to do so to the public prosecutor. For example, I determined almost low-level type (Defendant) and almost little of the type of type (Defendant) when I discussed about the pla-type card. I do not have little power to introduce almost all these people. I stated, “I do not have the authority to do so.......... It is possible to determine whether I have the authority to exercise all of the Defendant?” and asked, “I have made a statement that I would like to directly supply the Dok-type type (Defendant) and I Dok-type (Defendant 3) when I have made a statement to Dok-type (Defendant 7).”

③ When Nonindicted 9 was investigated by the prosecution in relation to the banner costs, the Defendant appears to have asked Nonindicted 9, who called “to lend money remitted to Nonindicted 7,” or who was found to be the superintendent of the office of education, that “I would like to believe that I would be not a political person but a professor. I would like to believe that I would be in good faith.” However, if Nonindicted 1 alone made a false statement on the documentary evidence of banner costs without a statement with the Defendant and received excessive reimbursement of election expenses by using it, the Defendant would have failed to make the above request without any explanation to Nonindicted 9.

B. Prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of legal principle

According to Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act and Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act, notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act, Article 49 of the Political Funds Act provides that concurrent crimes shall be tried and sentenced separately for those crimes provided for in Article 49 (Punishment concerning Offences related to Election Expenses) and other crimes.

On the other hand, among the facts charged in this case, the crime No. 1-A, B-A, B-A, and B-B of the judgment of the court below should be sentenced separately from the crimes provided for in Article 49 of the Political Funds Act, and Article 1-C, 2-C, and 2-C of the judgment of the court below. However, the judgment of the court below stated in the order that "the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months and a fine of five thousand won,00 won." However, the above imprisonment with prison labor shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, and as such, it did not be specifically classified, Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 18(3) of the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is made again through oral argument.

Article 50 of each Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 49(1) and (2)6 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact of violating the Local Education Autonomy Act due to Documentary Evidence and False Entry in Accounting Reports, Selection of Fines), Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud, Selection of Fines) of each Criminal Act

1. Separate sentence for concurrent crimes;

Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 18(3) and Article 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (the punishment for each violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act and the punishment for each crime of fraud shall be imposed separately)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (each violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act shall be punished and sentenced to the most severe punishment. B. Penalty provided for in the Local Education Autonomy Act, and penalty provided for in the Local Education Autonomy Act, and penalty provided for in Article 2-3 (c) of the Decision with heavier punishment for each crime of fraud.

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

On the other hand, however, the sum of KRW 11,00,000 among the sum of the instant fraud was already recovered according to the result of the criminal case judgment against the previous Nonindicted Party 1, etc., and the remaining amount of the defrauded was also recovered in the trial, and the Defendant has no record of the crime except for two times before and after the fine due to the previous violation of the Road Traffic Act for a long time.

The defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, and various sentencing factors as shown in the argument of the case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)

(1) In the prosecution, Non-Indicted 2 stated, “I did not have any money during the period of detention.” Thus, I sent KRW 10 million to Non-Indicted 1,00,000 won after deducting KRW 1,000 from KRW 10 million. At that time, Non-Indicted 1 did not have any money. At that time, I paid the memory that Non-Indicted 2 had been written with KRW 1,00,000. The volume sent to Non-Indicted 1,000,000 to be 1,000 won out of the semi-indicted 1,000,000 won was 1,2,000 won. Accordingly, in light of this part, Non-Indicted 2 stated, “I would have made settlement for that part, and I would have paid it to Non-Indicted 1,000,000 won after deducting KRW 1,000,000 from the above KRW 81,000.

(2) On October 8, 2014, Non-Indicted 9 stated that the price for the instant banner was calculated on the basis of KRW 9,000 per square meter after being investigated by the prosecution on October 8, 2014. After being investigated by the prosecution on October 14, 2014, Non-Indicted 9 corrected the existing statement that the price for the banner was calculated on the basis of KRW 8,000 in square meter.

3) Nonindicted 9 stated that Nonindicted 9’s difference between KRW 20,277,277,00, and KRW 20,277,00 on the sales account book and KRW 20,277,00,00, which is the amount calculated by “amount returned 45,656,600 won - Amount returned 21,228,800 won - value added tax 4,150,600, is an erroneous or calculated amount (see Nonindicted 9’s statement in the fifth trial record).

4) Nonindicted 9 stated to the effect that the difference between KRW 20,314,720, which is calculated on the basis of KRW 8,000 per square meter (the actual unit price for banner) and KRW 20,277,200, which is the amount obtained by subtracting the return amount and the value added tax from the amount remitted to Nonindicted 9 as the price for banner, from the amount remitted to Nonindicted 9 as the price for banner, would be based on the calculated number (see Nonindicted 9’s statement in the fifth trial record).

Note 5) According to the phone page of the result of the monetary content analysis, Nonindicted 7 appears to have found Nonindicted 9’s office after Nonindicted 7 called Nonindicted Company 9 at the vicinity of Nonindicted Company 9 (place of call: address omitted).

Note6) An instruction on the preservation of election expenses prepared by the Ulsan Election Commission states that the cost of providing Category C food and drinks provided to persons visiting the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office within the ordinary limits is not subject to preservation (see evidence record 653 pages).

Note 7) From the account in the name of Nonindicted 11 to June 1, 2010, the total of KRW 16 million was withdrawn from 09:37:54 to 09:18 on June 1, 2010 to 09:4:18, and 4 million won was withdrawn from the same account in cash from the same account. The agricultural, forestry and the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△ branch and knife branch are located near the Defendant’s election office.