정치자금법위반
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. In a case where Defendant A received KRW 30 million from Defendant A from Defendant B during May 2010, in accordance with the agreement on the business of the restaurant, the amount of KRW 30,000,000 from Defendant A received from Defendant B during the process of calculating the gist of the grounds for appeal or misapprehending the legal principles is merely the amount of money for the business of operating the restaurant at the construction site in Chungcheongnamnam H in accordance with the agreement on the business of the restaurant, but not the amount of money for election. As long as the amount was received from the settlement of accounts
Although Defendant A acquired the right to operate a brin restaurant, Defendant A’s business relationship is not recognized since he did not waive the operation of the brin restaurant so that Defendant B may operate the brin restaurant, did not participate in the opening and operation of the brin restaurant at all, and did not manage or settle the profits and there was no distribution of the profits. Thus, Defendant A received KRW 50 million from Defendant B from Defendant B on May 2010 for the first time, not for the distribution of the profits from the operation, but for the election fund.
B. The court below asserts that the defendant's punishment (the defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, the suspension of execution for 2 years, and the fine for 7 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendants is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A or violation of laws and regulations, the court below acknowledged facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, and determined that Defendant A received KRW 30 million from Defendant A from Defendant B in the middle of May 2010, and granted Defendant B’s election fund free of charge, not the proceeds or settlement money, but the proceeds or settlement money for the operation of the restaurant, which Defendant B is obligated to pay to Defendant A. In light of the following facts, the court below’s decision is justified.
First, the defendant.