DE ITE DES in the event of a residential astronomicalce;

Reference domicile DE in Dollan City DE

2. (DETEC), A

Residential tent City

Reference domicile City

Attorney Lee In-bok

Law Firm (For the Defendants)

Attorney Kim Jong, Justice Kim Jong-soo, Justice Lee Dong-young

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, Article 5 of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 6516, Sep. 27, 2001) provides for the Defendants’ supporters’ association’ association as an organization established and operated pursuant to the above Act for the purpose of contributing political funds to the National Assembly members, etc., by means of assemblies, mail, communications, advertisements, etc., and by which money and valuables are collected after deducting direct expenses are collected. The Defendants’ association shall have a person in charge of accounting keep all revenues, such as support payments, collection money, etc. of the members and have him/her manage all expenses including contributions to the National Assembly members. Accordingly, donation of money and valuables collected to a member of the National Assembly by a supporters’ association established pursuant to the above Act constitutes a measure pursuant to the purpose of establishing the supporters’ association and the establishment purpose of the supporters’ association. Thus, even if a person in charge of accounting contributes money and valuables collected to a member of the National Assembly, it cannot be evaluated that such act goes against the purpose of the supporters’ association’ association’s establishment and its purpose.

Unlike this, the court below's determination that the Defendants, who processed the act of leaping, can not be exempted from liability as a co-principal with the knowledge that the support fund would be used for private expenses, etc. against the purpose of political funds, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of embezzlement on duties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Defendant leap’s ground of appeal is nothing more than pointing out the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and it cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of occupational embezzlement as to the defendants should be reversed. Since this part of the judgment of the court below is a single sentence in relation to the remaining occupational embezzlement and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed and this part of the judgment is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Noh Jeong-hee