2. The Director General of the Administration of Yeongdeungpo-gu;

3. A member of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Council;

4. NewO or self-employed business;

Law Firm Cheongn, Attorneys Yang Jae-ho (for defendant 1's office)

Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Shin Jae-il (Defendant Cho Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kim Sung-hwan (Korean National Assembly for Defendant NewO)

When Defendant KimO, Professor, and Professor did not pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in the Nowon-gu for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won per day into one day.

The penalty amounting to KRW 300,000 shall be collected from the defendant's ChoO.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to each of the above fines against Defendant KimO, Mau, and Mau00.

Defendant NewO shall be acquitted.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant KimO, the court's ruling, and each part of the court's statements; 1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination against the defendants

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution at 000,000;

1. Each police protocol of statement 000;

1. Plans for the promotion of joint seminars in 2005, revenue and expenditure budget (2005) and ordinary expenses execution and payment resolution (2005);

Judgment on the Issues

1. Determination as to each of the claims by Defendant KimO, Mao, and Mao00

A. Summary of the argument

Since the act of donation in this case does not violate the social rules, illegality is excluded.

(b) judgment;

Article 112 (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides money and valuables, etc. falling under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and Article 257 (1) 1 of the same Act punishing a violation of the prohibition of contribution by a candidate, etc., unless it falls under the act of courtesy or in the performance of duties according to the National Election Commission Regulations and the relevant committee's decision. However, even if a contribution act by a candidate, etc. does not fall under the act of courtesy or in the performance of duties prescribed in Article 112 (2) of the same Act, if it can be seen that it is within the scope of social order which has been naturally created as a kind of ordinary living form, even if it does not fall under the act of courtesy or in the performance of duties, it can be said that there is a case where illegality is discovered because it does not violate social rules, but it is necessary to recognize the rejection of illegality for such reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2245, Aug. 19, 2005).

In light of the following circumstances, the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office's budget for 2005 does not stipulate that some of the expenses for holding joint seminars shall be paid to the Gu Council members as subsidies for joint seminars. The withdrawal of the total amount of KRW 5,00,000 paid for tuition fees and other expenses (including tolls, service charges, emergency medicine, simplified food, etc.) in the project promotion plan for joint seminars shall be made and used as subsidies regardless of the purpose of the project promotion plan. The above project promotion plan was planned to bear all the expenses necessary for the joint seminars under the project promotion plan, and in fact, it is difficult for the Gu's office to separately bear all the expenses, such as transportation expenses, lodging expenses, and meal expenses, which were incurred at the time of the instant case, and it is not necessary for the Gu's Council or the Gu's council members to separately use the funds for the purpose of private seminars, which are not for the purpose of the Gu's private seminars, and it is difficult for the 0-O's organization to separately use the funds for the purpose of the above joint seminars.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s assertion

A. Summary of the argument

As to the facts constituting the crime in the judgment, 300,000 won, which was acquired by Defendant 100 in relation to the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, is part of 600,000 won, which was later received from Defendant 1 Kim 00, separately from the amount of 4,200,000 won under paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and thus, it cannot be said that it was donated from Defendant 1 Kim 00.

B. Determination

On the other hand, although the facts of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below are recognized as having been contributed from the above defendant Kim 00 as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor raised a public prosecution only for a part of the above amount of KRW 4,200,000 as the prosecutor raised a public prosecution. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and defendant KimO who has selected punishment: The defendant's regular directors under Articles 257 (1) 1 and 113 (1) of the Public Official Election Act (selected of fines): Articles 257 (1) 1 and 115 of the Public Official Election Act (elective of fines): Article 257 (2) of the Public Official Election Act (elective of fines): Article 257 (2) of the Public Official Election Act (elective of fines);

1. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant KimO, Mac, Mac00);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection of additional dues (Defendant's ChoO);

Article 257(4) of the Public Official Election Act

1. A provisional payment order (Defendant KimO, fact-finding, vis-vis);

The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is committed in collusion with the defendant KimO, the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, and the head of the administrative bureau of the above Gu office, which is the electorate and the head of the administrative bureau of the above Gu office, to contribute money as a grant for joint seminars of the Gu office and the Gu council. The defendant Cho 00 was donated. It may interfere with the settlement of clean and fair election culture and cause harm to the election of the right, and thus the nature and crime of the crime is very serious. The citizen's tax revenue is used for private purposes, and the possibility of criticism is high. The above defendants have no records of the crime of the same or similar kind. The crime of this case was committed within the limited scope of the election between the head of the Gu and the member of the Gu, and it seems that there is no significant influence on the election. The defendant Cho O appears to have been involved in the crime of this case, such as the defendant's name and behavior in the process of the above administrative office, etc., the defendant's office of Yeongdeungpo-gu.

Parts of innocence

1. The facts charged against Defendant NewO

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant NewO is that at around 00 on December 27, 2005, Defendant NewO received KRW 200,000,00 from Defendant KimO on a single bag containing KRW 200,000 from Defendant KimO in the guest room for the above LO, and received KRW 20,000,00 from Defendant KimO.

However, this part of the facts charged is based on the premise that the defendant Kim O was a person who contributed to the defendant Kim O and was contributed to the defendant Shin O, and inasmuch as the defendant Kim 00 contributed 4,200,000 won to the defendant Cho O as stated in the facts charged in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the judgment, even if 200,000 won out of the above money was transferred to the defendant Kim O through the defendant Cho O, it cannot be deemed that the defendant Kim O contributed 20,000 won to the defendant Kim O, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As to the facts charged against Defendant KimO, KimO, and Jeong in part of the facts charged against Defendant Kim Jong-O, Defendant Kim Jong-O, and Defendant Kim Jong-sung, in collusion, the time and place indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged as indicated in the judgment in question, and the fact that he additionally donated gold KRW 600,000 to the above defendant Cho Jong-O in addition to the contribution of KRW 4,200,000 as stated therein.

As to this, Defendant Kim 00 and Jeong Jong-chul argued to the effect that they did not offer additional 600,000 won to Defendant Cho Jong-soo, which was argued to the effect that they did not offer more than 600,000 won, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that he was about 600,000 won additional 60,000 won around the date and time of criminal facts set forth in the judgment. However, as to Defendant Kim O, Kim Jong-O, and Jung-Un offered additional 600,000 won, it is insufficient to acknowledge it even according to all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it ( even if Defendant Jong-tae was involved in providing additional 60,000 won, even if the crime of this case against the above Defendant was committed on the premise that the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act was established due to the Defendant Kim 00's contribution, it cannot be recognized as to the above 600,000 won.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of the Public Official Election Act under paragraph (1) of the same Article, the judgment

Judges Kim Gin-young

Equitable