1. The objective facts as to the candidate for Lee Jae-young and Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the Supreme Court judgment)

A. Courses for Egymbling and Non-Indicted 1’s partnership

Non-Indicted 1 established the company "Non-Indicted 7 Stock Company" on the 17th floor of the building of Non-Indicted 11 Stock Company in Jung-gu, Seoul around April 27, 1999 while he was working as a fund manager in Korea. Around September 23, 1999, Non-Indicted 1 held 98.4% of the shares of Non-Indicted 7 Stock Company from Non-Indicted 26 Stock Company (Representative Director Non-Indicted 24) on the condition that he continued to maintain his management right, and changed the trade name on October 9, 199 to "non-Indicted 5 Stock Company", and completed the registration of an investment advisory business and discretionary investment business on November 16, 199, and developed the investment activities of PMA, such as MAF, etc. by attracting an investment of KRW 1 billion from Non-Indicted 11 Stock Company, and developing the investment in PMAC, etc. on February 8, 2000.

After that, between February 24, 200 and March 9, 2000, Nonindicted Co. 1 acquired 93.4% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 5 Co. 5 Co. 5 Co. 5 Co. 26 Co. 2, Ltd.’s ownership from February 24, 200 to March 9, 200, and around January 18, 2001, 5% of the remaining shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 5’s ownership in the name of “Nonindicted Co. 19 Co. 19”).

On the other hand, while Non-Indicted 1 had a plan to establish a securities company in Korea in addition to investment advisory business and colors its partners on January 1, 200, he was elected as a candidate for Embrymbling candidate (the candidate was elected as a candidate for the 17th presidential election implemented on December 19, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "candidate for Embrymbling candidate") and Internet securities company. On February 18, 2000, Non-Indicted 1 established the "Non-Indicted 8 stock company" at the office of Non-Indicted 5 corporation located in the 17th floor in the building of the above Non-Indicted 11 corporation, and appointed two persons as joint representative director of the Financial Supervisory Service. around June 30, 200, the bank invested KRW 50 million in the non-Indicted 8 corporation and obtained 4% of shares of Non-Indicted 8 corporation from Non-Indicted 14, 200 and the candidate obtained a preliminary permission under the name of the Internet securities company (hereinafter referred to as 1.).

After that, the candidates for Lee-young had an interview to the purport that they begin a new Internet financial business in various media, and around January 2001, the office office was moved into the office (hereinafter omitted) in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the candidates for Lee Jong-young and Nonindicted 10 as joint representative director was established on or around February 2, 2001 as joint representative director. At that time, Nonindicted 1 and the candidates for Lee Lee-young were incorporated into the above company as the subsidiaries of Nonindicted 8 after three years, but the capital of 10 billion won necessary for the operation of Nonindicted 9 Company was raised by selling the shares of Nonindicted 8 Company to attract foreign capital.

While promoting foreign capital inducement in accordance with this plan, Non-Indicted 1 used this opportunity to acquire control over Non-Indicted 8 Company, on February 21, 2001, introduced Non-Indicted 90 Company “Non-Indicted 90 Company”, which was established in the U.S., as a normal investment company, to transfer Non-Indicted 1’s shares of Non-Indicted 8 Company 1 and Non-Indicted 90 Company. On February 28, 2001 and March 2, 2001, the KRW 10 billion transferred from Non-Indicted 9 Company to Non-Indicted 8 Company was used as the capital of Non-Indicted 9 Company, and as a result, Non-Indicted 1 virtually controlled Non-Indicted 8 Company.

However, around February 2001, Nonindicted Co. 11, which invested in Nonindicted Co. 5, discovered the forgery of Nonindicted Co. 5’s report on the operation of the fund, reported it to the Financial Supervisory Service, and conducted a sector inspection on Nonindicted Co. 5 at the Financial Supervisory Service from March 2, 2001 to March 13, 2001. As a result, the problems, such as “short operating personnel, embezzlement of Nonindicted Co. 5’s funds, and false preparation of an investment report,” were discovered, Nonindicted Co. 1 and Lee Jae-sung, on April 6, 2001, voluntarily withdrawn from the application for permission for the registration of the securities business by deeming that it is difficult for Nonindicted Co. 9’s securities business. On April 27, 2001, the registration of the investment advisory business of Nonindicted Co. 5 was revoked.

After the aforementioned investigation of the Financial Supervisory Service on April 18, 2001, the candidate for Lee Jae-young resigned from the office of representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 and around that time, the candidate was in alliance with Nonindicted Co. 1. On June 8, 2001, Nonindicted Co. 10 passed a resolution to dissolve Nonindicted Co. 9 and completed liquidation work by registering Nonindicted Co. 10 as liquidator. On June 26, 2001, the 10 billion won invested from Nonindicted Co. 90 was returned to the above company.

B. The crime of Nonindicted Party 1’s manipulation and embezzlement

Around June 18, 1999, Nonindicted Co. 1 established a foreign MAF fund (MAF PLC on the MAF 1999) and managed Nonindicted Co. 11’s investment funds (the local trustee was a corporation of foreign exchange banks) under his responsibility. Since May 2000, Nonindicted Co. 5 established three of the MAF UND on the Marabuan and Brith Islands, which was a fund of foreign investment, and made an investment in domestic stocks and futures trading, etc., and the registration of Nonindicted Co. 5 started on December 5, 2000 and took over the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 (the former representative director of Nonindicted Co. 29) from around December 5, 2000 to around 47, 201, and revoked the registration of Nonindicted Co. 5’s investment company (the former representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4 (the former representative director of Nonindicted Co. 29) from around 201 to the Seoul office.

After that, Nonindicted Co. 1, who pretended to invest in a foreign fund, has increased its capital five times against Nonindicted Co. 4, sold the shares increased through the stock price manipulation, realized its marginal profits, and embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 31.9 billion of the funds of Nonindicted Co. 4’s company from August 2001 to October 2001.

However, around April 27, 2001, the registration of Nonindicted Co. 5 was revoked and the investors of Nonindicted Co. 5 demanded the return of the investment amount, Nonindicted Co. 1 returned the investment amount of Nonindicted Co. 5’s investors using the embezzlement funds, etc. of Nonindicted Co. 4 in order to avoid the expansion of the case. However, upon the delay in the return of the investment amount, Nonindicted Co. 12 filed a complaint against Nonindicted Co. 1 and e-mailbbbling candidates against the investors around October 30, 201, and Nonindicted Co. 1 escaped to the United States on or around December 201, 201, when he/she reached an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 12 in the course of emergency arrest and investigation to the prosecution and released them on or around December 20, 201.

After Non-Indicted 1 escaped, the prosecution confirmed the criminal facts such as Non-Indicted 4's stock price manipulation, embezzlement of 36 billion won of the company's funds, forgery of documents, etc., and upon Non-Indicted 1's request to the U.S. on January 17, 2004 by the Ministry of Justice for extradition of Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 1 was arrested by the U.S. FBI on May 27, 2004, but delay the repatriation to Korea by means of personal petition for personal protection, etc. on August 19, 207, the candidate for Non-Indicted 1 was confirmed as a candidate for Non-Indicted 4 on or around October 3, 2007, after the candidate for Non-Indicted 1 was confirmed as a candidate for Non-Indicted 1's personal protection, and the prosecutor was repatriated to Korea on or around November 6, 2007, and the investigation was commenced on or around November 16, 2007.

(c) Courses for spreading suspicions related to candidates for e-mail;

Around June 2006, Lee Jong-young candidate, who had his term of office in the Seoul market, tried to run as a candidate for the 17th presidential election of the 17th presidential election, which was held on December 19, 2007. In some press and political areas, he began to raise suspicions on the following grounds: (a) some of the candidates for Lee Jong-young were involved in Nonindicted 5’s investment funds in Nonindicted Company 1 and the stock price manipulation and embezzlement of Nonindicted Company 4; and (b) in particular, at the time of the Defendant’s affiliation, members of the National Assembly belonging to the Republic of Korea continued to raise suspicions related to Nonindicted Company 5 of Lee Jong-young candidate through the Government questioning of the

When the repatriation of Non-Indicted 1 was confirmed around October 2007, the member of the National Assembly belonging to the Central Democratic Party of the Defendant continued to raise various suspicions about the candidates for Lee Jong-young in good faith, and the member of the National Assembly belonging to the Central Democratic Party of the Defendant came to know that there is a problem in the morality of the candidates for Lee Jong-young. After the repatriation of Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 1 suggested that the candidates for Lee Jong-young may be prosecuted by raising various suspicions about the candidates for Lee Jong-young through the one-day conference on the basis of the materials obtained in the existing press report or the U.S. or the materials obtained through Non-Indicted 1's related litigation and the information obtained through the informant, etc.

Then, it is necessary to find out the suspicion that the candidate for e-mail was the accomplice of the crime, such as the manipulation of Nonindicted 1’s stock price and embezzlement, and that he is hiding the fact that he is the actual owner of Nonindicted 6 Co., Ltd. (automobile parts manufacturing company) and Nonindicted 5 Co., Ltd. who invested a large amount of money in the Nonindicted Co. 5 Co., Ltd., and on November 2007, the countermeasure group was organized around 207, and the Defendant was the joint head of the countermeasure group.

2. Crimes by defendants;

A. Publication of false facts as to the reason for the resignation of Nonindicted 3 attorney-at-law

The reason why the attorney-at-law, who was the suspect of the so-called “Nonindicted Co. 5 case, was resigned by Nonindicted Co. 1’s attorney, was because Nonindicted Co. 3 demanded Nonindicted Co. 1 to dismiss Nonindicted Co. 3 as the attorney-at-law for the political use of the case. While he was aware of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 was a financial tax case, he was aware of the fact that he was involved in the financial tax case, but he was faced with the burden to conduct the pleadings because he was judged as a case with strong political nature, and the case was urgent and difficult to review legal issues and collect evidence. It was irrelevant to the possibility of prosecution or detention of the candidate for b

In addition, since the time when Nonindicted 3 attorney-at-law resigneds on November 20, 207 was the initial investigation stage in which Nonindicted 1 was repatriated in the United States and four days have passed since the date when Nonindicted 1 was repatriated in the United States, no one, including Nonindicted 3 attorneys-at-law, has materials that could be detained or prosecuted for the case of Nonindicted 5 Co. 3, or could be detained or prosecuted for the case of Nonindicted 5 Co.

Nevertheless, on November 207, 2007, the Defendant interviewed Nonindicted 2 reporters and telephone of the Internet journalist’s “Lisoft Business” with the intent of solely emphasizing the public relations about the price manipulation and embezzlement between Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1 without any confirmation on the reason of resignation from Nonindicted 3’s attorney-at-law. As to the reason of resignation of Nonindicted 3’s attorney-at-law, the Defendant determined that “ Nonindicted 3’s attorney-at-law confirmed the data and could be prosecuted for e-mail. The same is the same as Non-Indicted 3 attorney anticipateded that e-mail candidates might be prosecuted for e-mail.” The Defendant’s speech was reported on the same day.

As a result, the Defendant made a false statement as to the person subject to immigration control in order to make him unfavorable to the person subject to immigration control by means of broadcasting, newspapers, communications, magazines, etc., for the purpose of making him not elected, by suggesting that the candidate subject to immigration control in collusion with Nonindicted 1 was engaged in price manipulation and embezzlement, and may be detained or prosecuted, by either indirectly or bypassing the fact that the candidate subject to immigration control was confirmed by Nonindicted 3’s attorney, and that the candidate subject to detention or prosecution would be detained or prosecuted by Nonindicted 5’s case.

B. The publication of Nonindicted 10’s false facts regarding the monetary transaction of Nonindicted 31 Company

With respect to the case of Nonindicted Co. 5, until March 2, 2001, Nonindicted Co. 1 withdrawn 10 billion won (the source is the sale price for Nonindicted Co. 8’s stocks to Nonindicted Co. 90 as seen earlier) deposited in the account (Account No. 3 omitted) related to the foreign exchange bank account of Nonindicted Co. 9 (the source is the sale price for Nonindicted Co. 3’s stocks to be sold) from March 3, 2001, and transferred it to the beneficiary certificate account opened in Nonindicted Co. 28. Since it was decided with the candidate on April 18, 2001, it was inevitable for Nonindicted Co. 9 to liquidate the capital of Nonindicted Co. 9 to proceed with the procedure for returning it to the investor, and the use of the account related to Nonindicted Co. 9 was required for this purpose.

Accordingly, Nonindicted 1: (a) withdrawn KRW 9.879,095 of the capital of Nonindicted Company 9, which was operated by Nonindicted 10 on May 3, 2001 at Nonindicted 1; (b) Nonindicted 1; (c) transferred the said money to the new bank (Account Number 1); (d) on May 4, 2001, via an account opened in the name of Nonindicted 31; and (d) Nonindicted 1; (e) Nonindicted 1; (e) Nonindicted 3; and (e) Nonindicted 1; (e) Nonindicted 9; (e) Nonindicted 1; and (e) Nonindicted 3; and (e) Nonindicted 1; and (e) Nonindicted 4; (e) Nonindicted 8; and (e) Nonindicted 1; and (e) Nonindicted 3; and (e) Nonindicted 1; and (e) Nonindicted 4; and (e) Nonindicted 9; and (e) Nonindicted 1; and (e) Nonindicted 9; and (e) Nonindicted 1; and (f) Nonindicted 2) Nonindicted 3; and (f) Nonindicted 9; (f) Nonindicted 9; (f) Nonindicted 3) Nonindicted 1;

Ultimately, the funds deposited into the said Nonindicted Co. 9’s new bank and foreign exchange bank account is Nonindicted Co. 9’s capital for the liquidation of Nonindicted Co. 9. This does not relate to the stock price manipulation, and the transaction with Nonindicted Co. 31 was merely limited to a large amount of capital possessed by Nonindicted Co. 9 and a transaction for the management of funds carried out by Nonindicted Co. 1 in order to make profits from capital management by managing a large amount of capital in its possession.

Nevertheless, on November 29, 2007, the Defendant received 9.888,9379,095 won from the securities of Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office from the new bank (Account Number 1 omitted) on May 3, 2001, the Defendant lent KRW 9.8889,50,000 to Nonindicted Co. 31, 31, 2000, which was mobilized for Nonindicted Co. 1's stock manipulation in the same day. This money was deposited to the foreign exchange bank account of Nonindicted Co. 9 on May 28, 2001. In light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 10 was transferred to the radio account of Nonindicted Co. 10, Apr. 3, 2001, it was clearly stated that the Defendant's false report and the candidate's false report were made, and that it was the candidate's false report and the candidate's false report were made.

As a result, the Defendant continued to engage in personal transactions with the peter, which was used in the price manipulation even after Nonindicted 10, who was known as the part of the candidate for the Lee-young, even after Nonindicted 1 was in alliance with Nonindicted 1, thereby publicly announcing false facts as to the candidate for Lee-young in order to prevent his election, by speaking as if he participated in the price manipulation of Nonindicted 1 or made a false representation with Nonindicted 1, and by speaking as if he was in collusion with Nonindicted 1.

C. Publication of Nonindicted 10’s false facts as to Nonindicted 5 Stock Company

Since Non-Indicted 10 only carried out activities as the vice-chairperson of Non-Indicted 8 Co. 1 and Non-Indicted 1 as the non-Indicted 5 Co. 1 and Non-Indicted 1 did not act entirely at all, it was not the fact that Non-Indicted 1 sent the 50 president of Non-Indicted 3 Co. 5 under the name of the vice-chairperson of Non-Indicted 5 Co. 10; however, Non-Indicted 10 sent the 10 position to Non-Indicted 5 Co. 10 as the vice-chairperson of Non-Indicted 5 Co. 10; Non-Indicted 10 merely received the salary as Non-Indicted 8 Co. 5; Non-Indicted 10 Co. 4, Non-Indicted 5, Non-Indicted 10, Non-Indicted 10, Non-Indicted 5 Co. 10 and Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 3’s non-Indicted 5’s non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 1’s non-indicted Co.

Nevertheless, on December 3, 2001, the Defendant was in alliance with Nonindicted 1 on April 18, 2001 at the meeting of the National Assembly Secretariat located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. However, on July 23, 2001, the tax invoice for which Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 5’s office’s restoration expenses were paid on July 23, 2001, and the tax invoice as of July 21, 2001, which was issued by the middle branch of Nonindicted 34, was written as the representative director of Nonindicted 8, and thus, the Defendant was in alliance with Nonindicted 1 and the allegation of the candidate for Lee Jong-dong who was liquidated of business relations was 100% false. The Defendant did not appear to have been listed as Nonindicted 10, 500,000 won in each of the above newspapers, and he did not appear to have been listed as Nonindicted 10, 503,500,000.

As a result, the Defendant made a false decision with Nonindicted Co. 1, and made a false statement as long as he did not have any relation to Nonindicted Co. 5’s stock price manipulation, etc., and made a false statement as he took part in Nonindicted Co. 1’s crime such as the stock price manipulation, and published a false fact with respect to the e-mail candidate to be disadvantageous to the e-mail candidate by means of broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, etc.

D. Publication of false facts as to Non-Indicted 1’s note

On December 5, 2007, the prosecutor announced the results of the investigation into “the instant case involving the stock price manipulation, etc. by Nonindicted Co. 4” on the ground of objective evidence, such as the statements by all employees of Nonindicted Co. 5, the results of the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 4 and the tracking of the flow of funds for stock sale, the result of the so-called “the back contract of Nonindicted Co. 5,” and the result of the document appraisal of “the back contract of Nonindicted Co. 5,” which indicated that Nonindicted Co. 1 owned 10% of the shares of Nonindicted Co.

In addition, during the prosecutor's investigation process, Nonindicted Co. 19 was announced that, as the holding company in which Nonindicted Co. 1 owns 100% of the shares, the candidate or the joint representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 was not owned by Nonindicted Co. 19, Nonindicted Co. 19, and that there was no ownership of Nonindicted Co. 5 through Nonindicted Co. 8 and Nonindicted Co. 19, and that the candidate was confirmed that he did not participate in the stock manipulation and embezzlement related to Nonindicted Co. 5 in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 1.

On the other hand, the prosecutor obtained the 10% ownership of Nonindicted Co. 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) from Nonindicted Co. 1 to refer to the investigation. However, since the prosecutor confirmed that the former employees of Nonindicted Co. 5 were not related to Nonindicted Co. 5 and Nonindicted Co. 5’s statement based on objective evidence, such as the statement and the result of Fund tracking, etc., the above merculation containing Non-Indicted. 1’s statement was rare value of evidence, and the above merculation did not have any particular impact on the determination of whether there was a suspicion of suspicion against the candidate for the merculation, and Non-Indicted. 1 did not submit Non-Indicted. 1’s merculation to the effect that “Non-Indicted. 5 Co. 1 owns 100% ownership of the merculation,” the prosecutor did not disclose the results of the investigation into Nonindicted Co. 5’s case to the public prosecutor’s office without any consistency or consistency with the prosecutor’s decision to disclose it (hereinafter “Non-Indicted. 1”). 5”).

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) around December 12, 2007, at the National Assembly of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, the National Assembly held in the Young-gu, Seoul National Assembly; (b) there was no concealment or exposure to reporters of Nonindicted Co. 1’s Mempia (Memb B); (c) Nonindicted Co. 5’s prosecutor’s office provided that Nonindicted Co. 10% of Nonindicted Co. 5’s materials (Memba A) were owned by Nonindicted Co. 5 with 100% of Nonindicted Co. 5’s Mempia Co. 5’s possession of Nonindicted Co. 5’s Mempia (Mema A); and (c) on the same date, Nonindicted Co. 5 Company B.V.I.D.? Where so, Nonindicted Co. 1 owned 10% of its possession in the name of the Defendant’s 10%, or Nonindicted Co. 1 had 10% of its possession in the name of Nonindicted Co. 5 Company’s Memba.

As a result, the Defendant announced the results of the investigation by the prosecution that Nonindicted 1’s penology (merm B) unfavorable to the candidate for booming, and made the statement as if the candidate for booming was owned by Nonindicted Co. 5, and that the candidate for booming was involved in the crime such as the stock price manipulation and embezzlement, etc., by indirectly or bypassing the fact that the candidate for booming was owned by Nonindicted Co. 5 by Nonindicted Co. 5 and was involved in Nonindicted Co. 5’s stock price manipulation and embezzlement, etc., thereby publishing false facts about the candidate for booming to be disadvantageous to the candidate

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 30, and Nonindicted 36

1. Among copies of the protocol of trial in the Seoul Central District Court case 2007Da1408, the witness’s statements made by Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 55, Nonindicted 56, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 61, Nonindicted 62, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 64, Nonindicted 65, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 68, Nonindicted 69, Nonindicted 71, Nonindicted 72, Nonindicted 73, Nonindicted 74, Nonindicted 75, Nonindicted 76, Nonindicted 78, Nonindicted 80, Nonindicted 81, Nonindicted 82, Nonindicted 83, Nonindicted 84, Nonindicted 85, and Nonindicted 87, Nonindicted 86, and Nonindicted 87, respectively.

1. A copy of the prosecutorial protocol on Nonindicted 2, a copy of the prosecutorial protocol on Nonindicted 55, and the prosecutorial protocol on Nonindicted 58

1. Copy of Nonindicted 46’s written statements and Nonindicted 37’s written statements

1. 언론기사 2부(증거목록 2), 자필메모(증거목록 5), 팩스로 받은 공소외 1 메모지 사본(증거목록 9), 영문합의서(증거목록 12), 수사보고( 공소외 1 자필메모 기록편철 경위 등 보고, 증거목록 17), 언론보도문 3부(증거목록 18), 각 보도자료(증거목록 29), 공소외 1이 작성한 확인서 사본(증거목록 32), 운용전문인력 보고 및 부족상황(증거목록 33), 투자자문회사 분기별 영업보고서 제출(증거목록 34), 투자자문회사의 투자운용전문인력 변경 현황 보고(증거목록 35), 검사결과조치통보서(증거목록 47), 공소외 9 주식회사 명의 신한은행 계좌개설신청서 1부(증거목록 50), 공소외 9 주식회사 명의 신한은행 계좌 거래내역 1부(증거목록 51), 공소외 9 주식회사 명의 외환은행 계좌개설신청서 1부(증거목록 52), 공소외 9 주식회사 명의 외환은행 계좌 거래내역 1부(증거목록 53), 공소외 8 주식회사의 법인등기부등본(증거목록 57), 의료보험, 국민연금 등급 변경 전(증거목록 66), 보도자료 및 참고자료(증거목록 90), 언론기사 화면 출력본(증거목록 91), 인터넷에서 출력한 언론기사 각 1부(증거목록 98), 데일리서프라이즈 보도자료(증거목록 100), 언론보도기사 각 1부(증거목록 108), 한나라당 대통령 후보 이명박의 주가조작 등 의혹 사건 수사결과 발표문 1부(증거목록 112), 연합뉴스 기사(증거목록 131), 각 한나라당 보도자료 및 대변인 브리핑자료(증거목록 190), 각 국회회의록(증거목록 192), 2007. 10. 5.자 대통합민주신당 소속 의원 보좌관 공소외 88 수신 메일 “ 공소외 5 주식회사 계좌 자료”(증거목록 210), 2007. 10. 8.자 대통합민주신당 소속 의원 보좌관 공소외 88 수신 메일 “제이슨 엥겔스 계좌 관련”(증거목록 211), 2007. 10. 8자 대통합민주신당 소속 의원 보좌관 공소외 41 수신 메일 “자료 1”(증거목록 212), 2007. 11. 28. 19:56 공소외 30 발송, 피고인 수신 메일 “ 공소외 30입니다. - 내일자 보도자료”(증거목록 217), 2007. 11. 29. 09:53 공소외 30 발송, 피고인 수신 메일 “신당 공소외 5 주식회사 진실규명 대책단 보도자료입니다.”(증거목록 218), 2007. 12. 10.자 공소외 5 주식회사 진실규명 대책단 팀원 공소외 40 발송 메일 “[ 공소외 5 주식회사 대책단] 12월 10일 공소외 1 접견 참고자료”(증거목록 225), 2007. 12. 11.자 대통합민주신당 선거대책위원회 법무실장 공소외 89 수신 메일 “2007. 12. 11.( 공소외 1 접견내용)”(증거목록 227), 2007. 12. 11.자 공소외 40 발송 메일 “[ 공소외 40] 12월 12일 공소외 1 접견 참고자료”(증거목록 228), 2007. 12. 12.자 공소외 89 수신 메일 “자료(3차 진술)”(증거목록 229)

1. Results of an order to submit financial transaction information to a new bank of this court;

Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the severe penalty for concurrent crimes prescribed in the Public Official Election Act of December 12, 2007)

A. Summary of the assertion

The prosecution is not allowed because it constitutes abuse of the power of prosecution, without examining not only the complainants but also the core reference witnesses.

B. Determination

In a case where it is deemed that the prosecutor voluntarily exercised the right to institute a prosecution and gives substantial disadvantage to the defendant, the effect of the indictment may be denied as it is an abuse of the right to institute a prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do482, Apr. 27, 2004). However, the reason as alleged above is merely included in the judgment as to the existence of a crime as to the facts charged in this case, and it cannot be deemed that such reason does not significantly deviate from the right to institute a prosecution.

2. As to the assertion that it is not an announcement of fact but an expression of opinion

A. Summary of the assertion

In relation to Paragraph A(a) of Article 2-A of the Decision, the Defendant expressed the Defendant’s personal interpretation or opinion on the question of the reporter who asked the reason for the resignation of Nonindicted 3’s attorney, and the content thereof is about Nonindicted 3’s internal trial, and “ .................................”

B. Determination

(1) In the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act, the false facts are not consistent with the truth, and are sufficient if the elector has the identity sufficient to mislead the candidate to make an accurate decision, but it does not constitute merely an expression of opinion whose content is simple value judgment or evaluation. In distinguishing between whether a statement is a true statement or an expression of opinion, it shall be determined in consideration of the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of language, the context in which the expression in question is used, the possibility of proof, and the social situation in which the expression was made, with the intent of ensuring the fairness of election, in mind (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6292, Nov. 13, 2002). Whether a certain expression of false facts is an expression, it shall be determined on the basis of the overall purport of the expression, the whole contents of the expression, the ordinary meaning of the words used, the ordinary meaning of the expression in relation to the general purpose of the expression, and the overall method of connection with the expression, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200363Do136.).

(2) In the instant case, even if the Defendant’s statement concerns the motive for the deliberation in the resignation of Nonindicted 3’s attorney, it is a statement of facts that can be proved by the same method as that of confirming Nonindicted 3’s attorney, and in the case of expressing the motive for the deliberation in another person, it is often often used in the case of using a conclusive expression, such as the instant statement, although it is often common. The Defendant emphasizes that the Defendant’s statement is credibility by adding the premise that “Nonindicted 3 was confirmed by himself” before speaking on the reason for the resignation of Nonindicted 3 attorney. At that time, Nonindicted 1 was repatriated in accordance with the extradition procedure on November 16, 2007 and resigned from the office of Nonindicted 3 only four days, and thus, there was interest in the background of the resignation, but the Defendant lent the form of Nonindicted 3’s judgment, which is not the form of judgment on his own, but the Defendant’s statement about it constitutes an elector’s suspicion that the Defendant’s statement constitutes one of the reasons for the Defendant’s resignation, and thus, it is determined that it constitutes an elector’s own expression or a specific statement.

3. As to the assertion that the public announcement of “facts about candidates” was not made

A. Summary of the assertion

The statement of No. 2-A(a) is about the reason for resignation of Nonindicted Co. 3, and there is no direct connection with the reason for resignation, and the statement of No. 2-D(d) of the judgment also relates to the prosecutor's office's office's announcement of investigation results of the case of Nonindicted Co. 5, and thus,

B. Determination

(1) "Fact-finding about a candidate" under Article 250 (2) of the Public Official Election Act means not only facts about a candidate himself/herself, but also indirect facts such as facts about a political party to which a candidate belongs or his/her personnel affairs but also indirect facts such as matters concerning a candidate's personal affairs, where such facts are deemed to obstruct the candidate's election, and where such facts are not directly related to the candidate's election, and thus, are not likely to infringe on the candidate's reputation or influence on the candidate's election, it does not include facts about the candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8368, Mar. 15, 2007). The statement of facts in the crime of defamation is not limited to indirect and round-up expressions, but also to cases of indirect and round-up expressions, if the existence of such facts is revealed in light of the overall purport of the expression, and thereby, there is sufficient possibility that social values or evaluation of a specific person may be infringed (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do3904, May 398, 2000).

Therefore, if it is recognized that the published facts are directly related to the candidate himself/herself, even if the method of indirect and indirect expression was used instead of directly expressing such facts, it should be viewed as the publication of “fact about the candidate”.

(2) In the case of the statement set forth in Article 2-A (A) of the judgment, the Defendant made a statement as to the reason for the resignation of Nonindicted 3’s attorney-at-law, stating that “The Defendant may be detained or prosecuted as a result of Nonindicted 1’s stock price manipulation and the charge of embezzlement.” This is clearly related to the candidate’s career, personal character, act, etc., which is clearly related to the candidate. However, it is nothing more than the Defendant’s use of a method of indirect and round-up expression rather than a method of directly expressing it.

(3) In the case of the statement set forth in Article 2-d (d) of the judgment, the Defendant revealed a specific fact that “The candidate for e-mail was directly related to the candidate’s career, personal attack, act, etc. as matters concerning the candidate’s career, attack, act of embezzlement, etc., and, at the same time, the Defendant announced the fact that “the candidate for e-mail was not intentionally disclosed the mermo B, which is contrary to the contents of such publication,” and at the same time, “the candidate for e-mail owns Nonindicted Co. 5 through Nonindicted Co. 8 as if the candidate for e-mail was indicated in the mermo B, unlike the contents of the prosecutor’s investigation result, unlike the contents of the prosecutor’s announcement.” In addition, it is clear that the candidate is directly related to the candidate’s career, personal attack, act, etc., and it is merely a method of indirectly and indirectly expressing the fact, not a method of directly expressing the Defendant’s publication.

4. As to the assertion that there was a considerable reason to believe that a false fact was not known and that there was a good reason to believe that it was true

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) The Defendant confirmed the following contents prior to making each statement set forth in Section 2-B(c)(d) of the judgment. As such, the Defendant did not recognize that the disclosure was false and there was a substantial reason to believe that it was true.

(2) The Defendant confirmed the accounting report submitted to the U.S. court, and confirmed that the amount of KRW 9.8 billion was deposited from the new bank account under the name of Nonindicted Co. 4’s “Nonindicted Co. 31” to the account of Nonindicted Co. 31 mobilized to the stock price manipulation, and again deposited into the foreign bank account of Nonindicted Co. 9. The Defendant confirmed that Nonindicted Co. 30’s assistant officer was the personal account of Nonindicted Co. 10. The Defendant confirmed that the above new bank account was the personal account of Nonindicted Co. 2(c) prior to the Defendant’s statement under Article 2(c) of the holding. The Defendant confirmed that, prior to the Defendant’s statement under Article 2(c) of the judgment, the request for light order (No. 16), medical insurance, national pension rating change (No. 17), lease agreement (No. 21), investment advisory company’s report on change of investment and management personnel, documents attached thereto (No. 22 through 24), and documents attached thereto (No. 28) and evidence No. 3131).

B. Criteria for determination

(1) In the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, it is necessary to recognize that the facts disclosed are false as the contents of the elements of the crime. Since the existence of such subjective perception is difficult to know or prove it outside of the country due to its nature, it is inevitable to make a normative determination by comprehensively taking into account all all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s academic background, career, social status, process of publication, time of publication, and ripple effect objectively anticipated from the publication (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2627, Jul. 22, 2005).

(2) On the other hand, the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act is also established because the intentional act includes not only conclusive intentional but also dolusent intentional act. The willful negligence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to a case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain, and it is permissible to do so. In order to have dolusent intentional act, there is not only awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, but also an internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the actor has permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime, based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that are revealed outside, without depending on the statement of the offender, should be determined by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed, and if the defendant's timely specific fact can be confirmed by time and physically recognized by social norms, it can be determined by the Supreme Court Decision 200Do4294, Apr. 29, 2004.

Therefore, in the case of the crime of publishing false facts under Article 250(2) of the Public Official Election Act, even if the defendant did not have a confirmed perception of the fact that the specific facts alleged are false, if the defendant had an awareness of the possibility of the falsity of the specific facts alleged, and further, if it is recognized that the defendant had an intent to deliberate to allow the risk of "public announcement of false facts", the crime of publishing false facts by willful negligence can be established.

(3) Furthermore, the institution of doubt about the candidate's corruption, etc. is not unlimited, even if it is for the purpose of verifying whether it is qualified as a public official, and is limited to the case where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such doubt is true. In this case, the person who actively asserts the existence of the suspected fact bears the burden of presenting supporting the existence of such fact. If such explanation is not presented, the person should be held liable for publishing the false fact unless there is any evidence to prove the existence of the alleged fact. On the other hand, if there is a considerable reason to believe that such suspicion is true by the evidence, etc. presented, it shall not be punishable to guarantee the freedom of expression even if it is found that the suspicion is not true (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003).

(c) Fact of recognition;

First, all of the facts published by the defendant are false, and it is sufficiently recognized by the evidence mentioned above.

Next, the following facts are acknowledged in relation to the publication of facts No. 2-b. C. D., according to each of the above evidence.

(1) part of Article 2-2(b) of the Judgment

(A) During the process of examining the accounting report submitted by Nonindicted Co. 6 to the U.S. court, Nonindicted Co. 4 Company’s assistant officers (including Nonindicted Co. 30) paid attention to the account of the new bank (Account No. 1 omitted) and the Korea Exchange Bank (Account No. 3 omitted), and confirmed the deposit amount of each of the above accounts. Nonindicted Co. 30 attempted to transfer KRW 1,000 to the above accounts by means of Internet banking. In the process of transferring to the Korea Exchange Bank’s account, Nonindicted Co. 10 (Nonindicted Co. 9) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 10”) was confirmed that the deposit amount was displayed on the computer screen. However, in the process of transferring to the new bank’s account, Nonindicted Co. 30 did not confirm whether Nonindicted Co. 1’s deposit amount was “the new bank’s account No. 10”) or the new bank’s account amount was “the new bank’s account No. 30, Nov. 28, 2007.

(B) However, Nonindicted 39 testified that Nonindicted 39, an employee of the new bank legal services branch, testified that there was no fact that Nonindicted 30 did not confirm the deposit interest of the said account to Nonindicted 30, and that the new bank did not inquire of Nonindicted 30 on the order to submit financial transaction information of this court at the new bank legal services branch on November 28, 2007.

(C) Meanwhile, in the prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant stated in the instant measure that “The instant measure group did not think that the said account was an individual account or a corporate account, and that it was because it was the focus of the issue that it was a large amount of transaction with the old company regardless of the corporate account. However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 10, who was Nonindicted 10, who was Nonindicted 10, in the part of the candidate for the long-term gambling, lent a large amount of share price manipulation through the personal account, was false, and that it was also false that the candidate for long-term gambling, was used to make a false statement that he was involved in the stock price manipulation and embezzlement.

(D) Furthermore, the Defendant’s new bank account of Nonindicted 10 in this part of the news report materials refers to “personal passbook” and thus, it is not an account that Nonindicted 1 would be able to forge or misappropriate the seal. During the period in which the share price manipulation was made through the account of the relevant company, Nonindicted 10, the nearest side of the candidate for the transfer-to-be election, was simply aware of the existence of “Nonindicted 31 Stock Company,” and the fact that Nonindicted 10, the nearest side of the candidate for the transfer-to-be election, was closely involved in all criminal processes, such as the stock price manipulation. The Defendant emphasized the meaning that Nonindicted 10, the nearest side of the candidate for the transfer-to-be election, was a certain material evidence directly involved in the “stock price manipulation and embezzlement.” However, it emphasizeds the meaning that the new bank account was an individual account of Nonindicted 10.

(E) In the accounting report that was based on this part of the Defendant’s statement submitted to the U.S. court, the non-indicted 6 corporation entered that the amount of KRW 9.889 billion was deposited from the securities beneficiary certificate account of the Defendant on May 3, 2001 to the new bank (Account Number 1 omitted) account of May 3, 2001, and that the amount of KRW 9.8889,9379,095 was deposited again on the same day, and the similar amount was deposited in the new bank (Account Number 2 omitted) account of the non-indicted 31 corporation on May 7, 2001. In the accounting report, the part on the (Account Number 1 omitted) account of the new bank (Account Number 1 omitted) account of the non-indicted 398 was deposited in the non-indicted 31 corporation on May 7, 2001. In the above accounting report, the non-indicted 16.

(F) On November 29, 2007, at around 19:56 on November 28, 2007, on the draft of the news report materials received by the Defendant from Nonindicted 30, the Korea Exchange Bank (Account Number 4 omitted) account was also recorded in Nonindicted 10. However, on the news report materials distributed from the press conference of November 29, 2007, the said foreign exchange bank account was missing from the account indicated as Nonindicted 10’s personal account.

(G) Nonindicted 40, 41, 42, and 30, etc., the working team of the instant countermeasures group, were already in the process of securing and analyzing the above accounting report from October 5, 2007, and the Defendant, as a co-head of the countermeasures group, examined the working team members and materials as a group leader of the countermeasures group, followed by preparing and distributing the report materials when the direction was decided to proceed with discussions and meetings, and confirmed that the countermeasures group confirmed the dynamics of the news report materials and its representative.

(h) As to the assertion that “Non-Indicted 10 holds the account of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 4,” which was raised by Non-Indicted 44 members in the Government questioning, the Hanna Party stated that the accounts with Non-Indicted 10 are not only the accounts of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 9, but also the accounts of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 9, on November 7, 2007.

(2) part of Article 2-3(3) of the Judgment

(A) On Nov. 20, 2007, the news report materials of Hanra, including the fact that the candidate resigned from the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 8 on Apr. 18, 2001 and that Nonindicted Co. 1 continues to operate his business practically, selecting Nonindicted Co. 45 as the representative director. On Apr. 18, 2001, the certified transcript of the corporate register of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 8 stated the fact that the candidate resigned from the representative director on Apr. 18, 2001 and was appointed as the representative director by Nonindicted Co. 45 on the same day, and the Hanna Party stated that the candidate and Nonindicted Co. 10 were unrelated to Nonindicted Co. 5.

(B) Prior to the change of the medical insurance and national pension rating (Evidence No. 66 and No. 17), the Defendant’s statement stated “foreign funds” on the upper left side of the document, and on the upper right side of the document, there is the seal or signature of the person in charge. However, the part of “non-indicted 5 Co., Ltd.” and “foreign funds” are written in addition to the printed phrase, and the part of “non-indicted 5 Co., Ltd.” and “non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd.” and the part of “non-indicted 8 Co., Ltd.’s employees” are written without any distinction. Meanwhile, in the part of the report materials on this part of the statement (Evidence No. 66 and No. 17 of the evidence list), the Defendant received from Non-indicted 10 and 5 Non-indicted 5 Co. 5 Co., Ltd. and entered “non-indicted 5 Co. 1’s salary return” in the statement of “non-indicted 880,000.”

(C) On March 9, 2001, Nonindicted 1 submitted a written confirmation to the effect that “Nonindicted 10, who did not work as an employee and did not receive benefits and medical expenses as a full-time employee, was falsely reported to the current status report,” with respect to the contents of the report on changes in the status of investment and management personnel of an investment advisory company, and Nonindicted 1 submitted a written confirmation to the effect that “Nonindicted 10, who did not work as an employee and did not receive benefits and medical expenses as a full-time employee, was falsely reported to the current status report,” and that “Nonindicted 43, who was raised by Nonindicted 44 members at the Government questioning, was working as the risk of Nonindicted 5 Co. 1, 207, and Nonindicted 205, who was aware of the fact that Nonindicted 3’s operation of Nonindicted 44, which was an investment advisory company’s operation of Nonindicted 5, which was the first 268 meeting held on June 20, 2007,” and that Nonindicted 105, etc. of the Financial Supervisory Service, was denied.

(3) Article 3-4(d)(3) of the Judgment

(A)On November 12, 2007, the news report materials of Hanra, prepared by Nonindicted Co. 1, 2007, on the questioning of the Financial Supervisory Service, “ Nonindicted Co. 5 owns absolute equity interest in Nonindicted Co. 19 ($4 million) located in Nonindicted Co. 19, and as of March 10, 2001, equity interest in the overseas Co. 10% is owned by 100%. Ultimately, Nonindicted Co. 5 is accompanied by a reply stating that “The news report materials of the same month include Nonindicted Co. 5’s ownership by 10% at the tax office, and Nonindicted Co. 1 confirmed that they own 10% of the Nonindicted Co. 5,” and that it includes Nonindicted Co. 25, an official document stating that “If Nonindicted Co. 5 obtained consent from the National Assembly fixed to Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, Nonindicted Co. 25,” and that there was no official document stating that Nonindicted Co. 25, 2008.”

(B) On December 5, 2007, in the notice of investigation results in the case of Nonindicted Co. 5, 2007, the prosecutor made it clear that Nonindicted Co. 1 owned 100% shares of Nonindicted Co. 5 and operated independently, and the candidate for e-mail was confirmed through various evidences that there was no relation with Nonindicted Co. 5.

(C) Around November 30, 2007, the Defendant obtained a copy of the metmo B from the newspaper reporter of “Semo 21” through Nonindicted 30 assistant officers, and that the reporter said that “ Nonindicted 30 assistant officers: (a) Nonindicted 8 appears to have owned Nonindicted 5 Stock Company; (b) Nonindicted 1 was prepared by himself and could not be seen as an article because it could be a unilateral assertion; and (c) under such circumstances, the Defendant and Nonindicted 30 could not be confirmed whether the above metamer was carried out at the stage of recourse to compensation, and thus, could not be disclosed.”

(D) On December 5, 2007, the Defendant stated that, after the prosecutor’s investigation was announced by the prosecutor on December 5, 2007, the member of the Alternative Democratic Party, who is an attorney-at-law, met Nonindicted 1 and confirmed that me B was prepared by Nonindicted 1. However, the prosecutor’s investigation result that was intensively implemented over a considerable period of time was already announced, and the memo B could be in conflict with the prosecutor’s investigation result in the prosecutor’s office’s announcement contents. In particular, even though the Defendant had had had had had had had had a question before it, the Defendant did not check whether the memo B was carried out at the stage of recourse, through Nonindicted 1’s interview or by other means.

D. Determination

(1) The following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition and evidence mentioned above, namely, that long-term candidates were suspected of having committed a crime, such as manipulation and embezzlement of Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 5. However, the main grounds for such suspicion were several documents presented by Nonindicted Co. 1, 200, 200, 300, 300, and 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00.

(B) Furthermore, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned earlier, namely, Hanna Party instructed the Defendant to be held liable for the publication of false facts on several occasions. Prior to the Defendant’s statement of this case, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming compensation against the Defendant at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court). The Defendant expressed that the Defendant voluntarily waived the privilege of immunity and made a statement through the press conference, etc. because the content of the publication was true. In addition to the instant statement, the Defendant presented various other supporting materials while making a statement that the candidate was involved in the stock price manipulation and the crime of embezzlement. In addition, the Defendant presented other opposing evidence that the candidate was involved in the stock price manipulation and embezzlement, and ordered Hanna Party to raise doubts on the suspicion. However, the Defendant continued to raise doubt by adding or newly presenting other materials, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant had any special probative value compared with the name of disclosure or opposite evidence already disclosed before the Defendant’s statement of this case, and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act of disclosure of false facts could be acknowledged by social norms, rather than the Defendant’s’s expression of physical suspicion and falsity.

(3) Therefore, it is determined that the Defendant had dolusent intent on the publication of false facts at least.

(4) Furthermore, according to the above facts, the materials presented by the defendant alone cannot be deemed as having considerable grounds to believe that the suspicion raised by the defendant was true, and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

In the instant case, the fact that the candidate for the election of public officials raised by the Defendant is likely to be involved in the price manipulation and embezzlement of the sum of KRW 10 billion, and the degree of impact on the fair judgment of the right holder as well as his personal rights is significant. On the other hand, when compared to the name of the candidate or the content of the dissenting evidence that was previously made or presented, the defendant himself/herself has a meeting on the credibility or evidence of some of the explanatory materials presented, and even if it was possible in time and physical sense to confirm whether the specific facts alleged by the defendant are true, the defendant neglected such confirmation procedures even though it was possible in terms of social norms. On the other hand, the defendant published the false fact using a deceptive expression that the other party’s candidate is irrelevant to a serious criminal suspicion, and thus, the other party did not have any influence on the other party’s criminal suspicion or embezzlement. In addition, even in the method of raising suspicion, it would be unreasonable or unreasonable to present the other party’s new evidence or evidence for the same reason as the other party’s new evidence or evidence.

Considering these points as the main sentencing factor, while the candidate in this case does not wish to punish the defendant, and only the complainant in Hanra has revoked the accusation against the defendant, and other circumstances, such as the age and conduct of the defendant, the motive and means of the crime and the result thereof, after the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances.

A. The Defendant damaged the reputation of the said candidate by openly pointing out false facts through an information and communications network with the aim of slandering the candidates for e-mail by means of the crime No. 2-A(a) as indicated in the judgment.

B. The Defendant damaged the reputation of the said candidate by openly pointing out false facts through newspapers, magazines, radio, or other publications with the intent to defame the candidates for e-mail by means of the crime No. 2-b. of the judgment.

C. The Defendant damaged the reputation of the said candidate by openly pointing out false facts through newspapers, magazines, radio, or other publications with the intent to defame the candidates for e-mail by means of the crime No. 2-C.

D. The Defendant damaged the reputation of the said candidate by openly pointing out false facts through newspapers, magazines, radio, or other publications with the intent to defame the candidates for e-mail in the manner as indicated in Article 2-d. of the criminal facts in the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The above paragraph is a crime falling under Article 61(2) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8778 of Dec. 21, 2007), and the above B. through D. of each Criminal Act is a crime falling under Articles 309(2) and (1), and 307(2) of the same Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 61(3) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and Article 312(2) of the Criminal Act. According to each of the records, according to the withdrawal of complaints and accusations filed in the records, the letter of withdrawal of complaints and accusations, the letter of revocation of complaints and accusations, and the statement of investigation (related to the cancellation of complaints and accusations of Korea) the victim’s wishes to revoke the Defendant’s declaration of intent on June 11, 2008.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that each of the facts charged is guilty of violating the Public Official Election Act in the holding that each of them is in a relationship of commercial concurrent crimes, the dismissal of prosecution is not ordered separately.

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)