C. Attorney C.

Attorney E.

1. Even if the act of offering money and other valuables under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act does not constitute the elements of a contribution act pursuant to Article 112(2) of the same Act and the National Election Commission Regulations based thereon, if it can be deemed that it is within the scope of social order which has been naturally created as a kind of ordinary living form, it does not violate social rules as a kind of courtesy or official act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5615, Aug. 26, 2010).

Based on the premise that the Defendant’s act of contributing the welfare fund of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education to the F Scholarship Foundation constitutes a contribution act, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that such act does not violate social norms and is illegal. Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable. It did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on grounds of recognizing the fact that the act of contribution under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act violates logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on grounds of excluding the illegality of the contribution act under the Public Official Election Act. 2. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of contribution under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act to a candidate or a person who intends to be a candidate, nor by misapprehending the purpose of the contribution act under the same paragraph, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to conclude that the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, concluded that the defendant intended to see the effect of donation to himself/herself, and maintained the conclusion of innocence of the court of first instance by deeming that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Public Official Election Act by granting each of the instant facts charged. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of donation under the Public Official Election Act, nor by misapprehending the legal principles

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Jeju High Court Justice Yang Chang-soo

Justices Kim Jae-tae