Defendant 1 and 87 others

Both parties

Kim Sung-ju (Court of Justice), Cho Sung-ho, Cho Jong-ho, and Choi Jong-ho (Court of Justice)

Attorney Kwon Young-young et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gohap69, 669, 746, 746, 749, 753, 756, 756, 756, 763, 769, 777, 780, 782, 792, 794, 796, 799, 802, 804, 806, 898, 97, 989, 97, 98, 97, 98, 97, 98, 98, 97, 98, 196, 98, 97, 196, 82, 826, 839, 829, 835, 848, 85, 8685, 8685, 8685, 89, 97, 97

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants

1) misunderstanding of legal principles and mistake of facts

A) Legal principles as to Amendments to Bill of Indictment

① The facts charged that “the Defendant paid the party membership fee as a party member and the facts charged that “the Defendant paid the support fund” found guilty by the lower court are different from the means and methods of crime and may bring about substantial disadvantages to the Defendants’ exercise of their defense rights. As such, the lower court’s finding facts constituting a crime different from those of the facts charged without any changes in indictment is unlawful by deviating from the necessity

② Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the State Public Officials Act due to the payment of party membership fees and the violation of the Political Funds Act are constituted by commission, but the Cms transfer of party membership fees is unilaterally made by means of transmitting the EB21 file to the Financial Settlement Board without the Defendants’ act, and there is no Defendants’ act. Therefore, it is unlawful for the lower court to recognize the Defendants as the omission crime without changing the indictment, even though there was no proof of criminal facts

B) misunderstanding of legal principles as to dismissal of prosecution

The facts charged as to the violation of the Political Funds Act are that the Defendants paid party membership fees as members of the ○○○○○○ Party, and the Defendants’ act of paying the “party membership fees” in the position of party members constitutes “Methods of contributing political funds provided for in the Political Funds Act” and thus, there is no room to establish a violation of the Political Funds Act separate from the violation of the Political Funds Act. Therefore, even if the facts stated in the indictment are true, this part of the facts charged constitute a reason for dismissing the prosecution as provided for in Article 328(1)4 of the

C) The absence of a penal provision against those who paid support money to similar organizations of supporters’ associations

Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act provides for the receipt and payment of voice political funds which do not fall under the method of receiving political funds in relation to receipt and payment of political funds, and Article 45(2) and Article 46 of the same Act provides for each penal provision in cases where they deviate from the limit to regulate the method, although they fall under the method prescribed by the Political Funds Act.

Since March 2006, when ○○○○○○ Party was repealed by the Political Fund’s establishment and operation of a supporters’ association or a similar organization of a supporters’ association for the purpose of contributing political funds, it may be punished pursuant to Article 45(2)1 of the Political Fund Act. However, the Defendants who paid the support money may not be punished based on the said provision, and there is no other penal provision regarding it, thus, the Defendants’ payment of support money does not constitute an offense.

D) The existence of justifiable grounds for intentional absence or mistake of law

In light of the fact that it is not easy for ordinary people to distinguish between “political party direct support” and “political party supporters’ association”, and that teachers may contribute support payments to political parties in the confirmation of the National Election Commission and the guidance for the year-end settlement of schools in office to support the degree of KRW 10,000 per month, and that ○○○○○○○○○○ also guideed that it is a legitimate political fund, and that Nonindicted 1, 1, 100 was admitted to and was not punished but was not punished, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the Defendants are not guilty of violating the State Public Officials Act by the violation of the Political Funds Act and the provision of money for political purposes, or that there is no crime by law.

E) Defendants’ act is subject to fines for negligence.

The defendants, as a teacher, have joined a supporters' association and supported most small amount of money as a legitimate sponsor, and the defendants' act of joining the supporters' association is only subject to an administrative fine under Article 51 (3) 3 of the Political Funds Act, and a contribution act as a member of a supporters' association is not subject to punishment under the Political Funds Act.

F) unconstitutionality of Article 65(4) of the State Public Officials Act

In Articles 65(4) and 84 of the State Public Officials Act, the term “Article 65(4) of the State Public Officials Act” means a unconstitutional law that violates the principle of prohibition of comprehensive delegation of legislation under Article 75 of the Constitution by clearly stipulating the elements of crime composition and delegated it to the subordinate laws and regulations.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment (a fine of KRW 300,000 or KRW 500,000) imposed by the court below on the defendants except Defendant 82 is too unreasonable.

(b) Grounds for appeal by prosecutors;

1) Legal principles as to continuing crimes

The violation of the Political Parties Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act due to the joining of a political party constitutes a continuous crime, not only the elements of the crime itself, but also a continuous crime, and thus, the starting point of the statute of limitations is the starting point for the withdrawal of a party member at the time of the completion of a criminal act. The public prosecution of this case is valid before the expiration of the statute of limitations from the completion date of the transfer of money.

2) misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant 82

Defendant 82 continued to transfer money to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, even after January 2006, stating his intention to resign by e-mail. Since only the intention to resign was maintained, Defendant 82 still paid support money with the intention to support ○○○○○○○○○○, since the intent to resign was maintained.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant 82’s appeal

As an appeal for a defendant is an objection against a judgment by a lower court, the essence of which is to correct a disadvantageous judgment against a defendant and to request a judgment favorable to him, the defendant cannot have the right to appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4866, Sept. 15, 2005, etc.).

Defendant 82 filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant 82, but the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to be disadvantageous to Defendant 82. Thus, Defendant 82 did not have the right to appeal against the judgment of the court below. Therefore, since the appeal of this case is illegal in violation of the method, Defendant 82 should dismiss the appeal by decision pursuant to Articles 362(1) and 360(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the judgment is rendered against the remaining Defendants except the above Defendant, Defendant 82’s appeal shall be dismissed by decision as ordered in package.

B. Note 2) Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

1) Legal principles as to Amendments to Bill of Indictment

A) Illegal recognition of facts constituting a crime that does not change the indictment

Without changing the indictment, in order to recognize facts constituting a crime different from those stated in the indictment ex officio without changing the indictment, the court must not only be identical to the facts charged, to the extent consistent with the facts charged, but also not be likely to cause substantial disadvantages to the defendant's exercise of his/her defense right (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2414, Apr. 29, 2010

As to the facts charged, the indictment states that “the Defendant violated Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act by transferring the nominal money to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party,” and the lower court acknowledged that “the Defendant violated Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act by transferring the money in the name of “support fund”. According to the records, the transfer of the above money is not only the date, time, amount, but also the means, method, etc. to “voluntary payment through the method of cms transfer.” The same is all the same, and it is merely an evaluation of only the same transferred money within the same scope as “support fund” by specifying that it is a political fund contributed by means other than those as provided by the Political Funds Act, and it is merely a case where the Defendant was unable to contribute support funds to a political party’s supporters’ association before March 13, 2006, and subsequent to the establishment and operation of a supporters’ association or a similar supporters’ association, it cannot be deemed that there was any substantial change in the name of the establishment and operation of the fund.”

Therefore, the decision of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the legal principles on changes in indictment.

B) The illegality of recognizing the crime of commission as a crime of omission without changing the indictment

The court below recognized the criminal facts that "the defendant applied for automatic payment through the CMS transfer method and then made a contribution of political funds by account transfer through the CMS transfer method," and the contents of the written indictment are the same as the criminal facts acknowledged by the court below. The court below did not recognize the criminal facts different from the written indictment or recognized the commission crime as the omission crime. Thus, the defendants' assertion on this part is without merit.

2) misunderstanding of legal principles as to dismissal of prosecution

(A) Effect on the joining of a political party members

Article 22 of the former Political Parties Act (amended by Act No. 11375, Feb. 29, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that "any person who has the right to vote as a member of a National Assembly may become a promoter, promoter of a political party, or a member of a political party" in the main sentence of paragraph (1) under the title "qualification as a promoter and a member of a political party", and the proviso provides that "a person who is ineligible as a member of a political party" (Article 2 subparagraph 1) and "private school teacher (Article 2 subparagraph 2)" and "private school teacher (Article 3)" (Article 2 of the State Public Officials Act and "a person who has the status as a public official under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes). However, a public official with political character and a professor from the

However, Article 7(1) of the Constitution explicitly provides that "public officials shall serve as a volunteer to the entire nation and shall be responsible for the whole nation," and that public officials shall not serve for the entire nation's interest and serve for certain people, specific political parties' interest. Article 31(4) of the Constitution provides that public officials engaged in educational fields shall guarantee the political neutrality of public officials to public educational officials in educational fields in an institutional manner, and Article 1 of the Political Parties Act provides that "The purpose of Article 22 of the Political Parties Act is to contribute to the sound development of political parties, political parties, democratic politics" and that public officials and private teachers shall be prohibited from becoming members of political parties, in light of the essence of the system for guaranteeing the status of public officials and teachers and contributing to democracy and the rule of law, and therefore, Article 37(2) of the Constitution prohibits public officials and teachers from becoming members of political parties in political neutrality as measures for securing political neutrality of political parties in violation of the essence of the system for public officials and teachers of political parties."

Thus, the defendants are "public officials as provided in Article 2 of the State Public Officials Act or teachers of private schools as provided in the proviso of Article 22 of the Political Parties Act, and therefore, even if the defendants joined ○○○○ Party as a party member, the act of joining party members is invalid.

(B) The act of joining party members and the act of paying money in the name of party members;

First of all, Article 22(1) proviso of the Political Parties Act provides that the act of joining a political party by a “public official or teacher of a private school provided for in Article 2 of the State Public Officials Act” who is prohibited from becoming a member of a political party is established in violation of the Political Parties Act.

In light of the purpose of legislation of the Political Funds Act, the term “party membership fee” means a party membership fee that is paid by a person who has joined a political party lawful and effective under the Political Parties Act and obtains the qualification of a party member. Thus, the actual act of joining the political party with the appearance of a person who is unable to join the political party because he/she has no qualification of party member, and the act of paying money under the name of a party member constitutes a violation of the Political Parties Act, separate from the act

Therefore, the Defendants, as “public officials and teachers of private schools as provided in Article 2 of the State Public Officials Act,” who are not eligible for party members as provided in the proviso of Article 22(1) of the Political Parties Act, and if they paid the money under the pretext of party members fees after joining a political party, the crime of violating the Political Funds Act may be established, separate from the crime of violating

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant’s act of joining the party membership fee as a member of ○○○○○ Party does not fall under the method of funding political funds as provided by the Political Funds Act. The facts charged in this part of the facts charged do not constitute a crime even if the facts stated in the indictment are true. Ultimately, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit (the Defendant’s interpretation that the party membership fee as provided by the Political Funds Act excludes the party membership fee paid by an unqualified party member goes beyond the bounds of the legal language and interpretation that expands the elements of a crime, thereby going against the principle of no punishment without law. However, Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Political Funds Act provides that “party membership fee” refers to money, securities, or other things that a party member bears according to the party constitution and party regulations, etc. of a political party, regardless of the pretext thereof. As such, it shall be deemed that the party member is qualified as a member and its membership fee is valid, and it shall not be deemed that the political fund act goes beyond the bounds of its language and text, and shall not be interpreted as null and void in light of the purpose of sound political development of party membership fee.

3) Absence of penal provision against those who paid support money to similar organizations of supporters’ associations

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that there was a penal provision regarding the Defendants’ act of paying support payments on the grounds that it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○ Party established and operated a supporters’ association or a similar organization, and that the provision on the Defendants’ act of paying support payments is applied to the receipt of political funds by means not prescribed in the Political Funds Act

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of various circumstances and legal principles, such as the reasoning of the lower judgment duly admitted and examined, the lower court’s determination on this part is justifiable, and there was no error as alleged above by the Defendants.

4) The existence of justifiable grounds for intentional absence of intention and mistake of law

A) Issues

In light of the grounds of appeal that it was not easy for the general public to distinguish between the “political party’s direct support” and “political party’s supporters’ association” on March 13, 2006, the purport of the political party’s support is to include “the intention to support the political party by legitimate means prior to the abolition of the political party’s supporters’ association, and the intention to directly support the political party was not the intention to directly support the political party, and even after the abolition of the political party’s supporters’ association, the Defendants were aware that there was a supporters’ association even after the abolition of the political party’s supporters’ association.” Therefore, the issue of whether the Defendants intended to pay the money to the political party itself is first issue.

Next, the assertion that the Defendants were able to support the Defendants with the knowledge that it was legitimate, constitutes an error of law by a vindication that they did not know of the provisions of the Political Funds Act regarding political funds contributions.

We examine this in order.

B) The existence of criminal intent to pay money for the party itself

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants, at the time of preparing “application for membership to ○○○○○○○ Party” or at the time of transferring each of the above money, knew that “the Defendants transfer money in the name of support payments to ○○○○○○ Party”, and thus, the Defendants’ intention is recognized to pay support payments directly to the Defendants.

① From February 2005 to December 2005, Nonindicted Party 2: “○○○○○○○○○○○ Party’s membership fee and supporters’ association fee were transferred from February 2, 2005 to ○○○○ Party’s reporting account; Nonindicted Party 2 issued a fixed amount receipt or a fixed amount receipt for the amount paid by ○○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s ○○ Party’s 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-

② Most of deposited money is transferred to another account, such as ○○○○○ Party or ○○○○○ Party’s supporters’ association, etc. in the form of money deposited immediately on deposit. Even if the said CMS’s total account is used for maintaining middle line, it was separately operated in the name of ○○○○ Party and the account in the name of ○○○○○ Party’s supporters’ association. Therefore, this supports the fact that two organizations’ accounts were operated separately.

③ At the time, the Defendants reported the items of the supporters’ association members indicated in the “application for membership to the ○○○○○ Party Party member, party members, and supporters’ association members, and had known that the document was a form used to support small amount to the ○○○○○ Party’s supporters’ association, and had the intent to support the said supporters’ association at the time of making the said application, at least, expressed a physical mark on the items of the supporters’ association members. However, the Defendants were assigned the eight-six-six-dimensional serial numbers assigned to the “90” number assigned to the supporters’ association members or the sponsoring party members, as well as the eight-six-six-dimensional serial numbers assigned to the party members, the party members, and the sponsoring party members without distinction. In addition, the above written membership did not contain any stipulation stating “the supporters’ association”, but at the bottom of the application for membership, there was no indication of “the amount of membership fees”, “the date of settlement of membership fees,” etc. in relation to the payment of the membership fees, and there is no description related to any other money.

④ According to the above statement by Nonindicted 2, the Defendants were entitled to receive a receipt of political funds from ○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○ Group’s political fund receipt through the above administrative process, as a party-related party or member from February 2, 2005 to December 2005. Thus, in relation to the tax credit for the amount of funds transferred after March 13, 2006, where the ○○○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○ Group’s abolition, if the Defendants received a tax credit even thereafter, the Defendants did not have to receive a “political fund receipt” under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○ Group’s ○○○○○ Group’s issuance, rather than a “political fund receipt” under the name of ○○○○○○○○ Group’s issuance. Second, if the Defendants did not obtain the said tax credit thereafter, this did not appear to have been able to know that ○○○○○○○ Group was subject to the said funds.

⑤ Upon the abolition of the political party’s supporters’ association system on March 13, 2006, ○○○○○ Party abolished on its website on March 12, 2006 (hereinafter “Guide of Supporters’ Association”). From March 13, 2006, when the Central Party’s supporters’ association and City/Do party’s supporters’ association were abolished on March 13, 2006 due to the abolition of the Central Party’s supporters’ association, it is difficult to refund the money to the Central Party’s supporters’ association head and the City/Do party’s supporters’ association head, if the money was deposited into the head of the Central Party’s supporters’ association and the City/Do party’s supporters’ association head, the money would be reverted to the National Treasury, and thus, it would be meaningful. In light of the fact that, at least, the Defendants posted the money that they paid to the members of the National Assembly could have been deducted from the amount of tax at the time of their year-end settlement, the direct payment of the money could have been discontinued.

【○○○○○○○○○○ Party’s transfer details after the transfer of the head of the Tong, including “○○○○ Party membership fee,” “○○○○○ Party’s special membership fee,” “○○○○○○ Party’s ○○○○○ Party’s ○○○○○ Party,” and “○○○ Party’s ○○○○ Party ○○○○○ Party ” (Evidence No. 6605, 6642, 6702, 6741, etc.). As such, the Defendants were aware that the source to which the said money was reverted was ○○○○ Party.”

C) Whether there exists a justifiable reason for a mistake of law

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it was difficult for the Defendants to have a reasonable ground to believe that the Defendants’ act did not constitute a crime under the law, on the grounds that the circumstances alleged by the Defendants are insufficient to deem that the Defendants did not make a serious effort to avoid mistake by fully performing their intellectual ability, and as a result, did not recognize the illegality of their act.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

D) Whether an administrative fine is subject to imposition

As seen earlier, the Defendants’ act constitutes an act of paying a monetary amount in the form of direct support payments to ○○○○○○○○ Party ( not a supporters’ association) rather than joining the supporters’ association as provided by the Political Fund Act, and an act of paying support payments to ○○○○ Party constitutes “an act of contributing political funds in a way that is not provided by the Political Fund Act.” As such, the Defendants’ assertion on a different premise is without merit.

E) Whether Article 65(4) of the State Public Officials Act is unconstitutional

The court below held that since Article 65 (1) and (2) of the State Public Officials Act prohibits specific acts that impair political neutrality (a party joining or election-related acts) and Paragraph (3) prohibits "request, etc. for a violation of paragraphs (1) and (2)" and Article 65 (3) of the State Public Officials Act delegates the form of delegation to each constitutional authority with regard to the limitation of prohibition of political acts in addition to Paragraph (4) "Article 65 (3) of the State Public Officials Act", there is a need to individually specify the political acts prohibited from the nature of each constitutional authority, and through the example of "political acts" under Article 65 (1), (2), and (3) of the State Public Officials Act, it cannot be deemed that Article 65 (4) of the State Public Officials Act violates the principle of prohibition of delegation.

The above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error as alleged by the defendants, and the defendants' above assertion is not justified.

B. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misapprehension of the legal principle

1) Legal principles as to continuing crimes

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below determined that the violation of the Political Parties Act and the violation of the State Public Officials Act due to joining party members and supporters' association members fall under all immediate crimes, and the statute of limitations is calculated from the time of entry in the roster of party members and the time of entry in the supporters' association members at the time of completion of the membership act, and that each part of the public prosecution was instituted after the statute of limitations has expired from the time of entry in each of the above facts charged. In full view of the following points, the judgment of the court below in this part is correct, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor.

(1) As seen earlier, the proviso of Article 22(1) of the Political Parties Act is an effective provision, and therefore, the act of joining a public official or a teacher of a private school as a party member shall be deemed null and void, and even if they have joined a political party as a party member, it shall not be deemed that the act itself becomes null and void, and therefore,

② In addition to the Political Parties Act (proviso of Article 22(1) and Article 53), the State Public Officials Act (Article 65(1), Article 84), and the Local Public Officials Act (Articles 57(1), and 82) provide that public officials shall not join any other than the Political Parties Act, with the exception of the State Public Officials Act (Article 65(1), Article 84), and the legislative purport of imposing the duty not to join a political party and imposing the penalty on such offense is different from the other Acts of the Political Parties Act.

③ A violation of the Political Parties Act and a violation of the State Public Officials Act constitute an act of joining by a person who is a “public official” or “private school teacher,” and there is a difference in that other crimes are non-identification crimes established when joining regardless of his/her status. However, this is only related to the subject of the constituent elements, and it does not change in determining whether a “sent act” needs to be completed.

④ Article 42(2) of the Political Parties Act provides that “any person who has become a party member of more than two political parties” and Article 53 of the Political Parties Act provides that “any person who has become a party member of more than two political parties in violation of Article 42(2) shall be punished.” This is a matter of legislative resolution that, since the act of joining a political party is subject to punishment for joining another political party after the act of joining a political party is completed, it is not necessarily necessary to keep the period of time in which the act of joining a party is unlawful. In a case where an act of joining a political party is deemed as an immediate crime, a person who has a long-term double political party to the extent that the statute of limitations may not be imposed, and an unreasonable result would not be punished only for those who hold more than two short-term dual political parties, or even if a person who has already been punished as a party member of more than two political parties

(5) In a case where a person fails to perform his/her duty of commission after a fact constituting the constituent elements exists due to the failure to perform his/her duty of commission, the crime of neglecting his/her duty is different from the crime of neglecting his/her duty, and the crime of violating the State Public Officials Act due to the act of joining a public official and the Political Parties Act, the act of joining a political party continues to exist after the act of joining a political party itself is merely a state of continuing to be a crime after the completion

2) misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant 82

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below held that there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 82 joined ○○○○ Party with the intention to support the original ○○○ Party and consented to cm transfer, but it was apparent that Defendant 82 withdrawn from cm transfer around January 20, 206, and thus, it still paid support money with the intent to support ○○○○ Party as to the money as stated in the facts charged of this case withdrawn thereafter. If the judgment of the court below is examined closely with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendants and prosecutors

The Defendants, on a regular or irregular basis, contributed to illegal political funds of 730,000 won in total, which are 10,000 won or less by transferring the money to ○○○○○○○○○○○, on a regular or irregular basis, under the pretext of support payments, etc., in consideration of the fact that the Defendants’ act is highly likely to be criticized by harming the legislative intent of the Political Fund Act aimed at guaranteeing the adequate provision of political funds, securing transparency, and preventing any malpractice related to political funds, and demanding a national public official to have a fair and neutral attitude as a servant of the entire nation, by preventing any illegality related to political funds, the Defendants need to punish the Defendants for punishment corresponding to their responsibility (the prosecutor asserts that the amount is not a support payment, but a “party membership fee.” However, the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed to have subscribed with the Defendants’ intent of holding the same status as a party member fee paid by the Defendants on the grounds stated in its reasoning. It is reasonable to view the lower court’s judgment that the Defendants’ act is a party member fee.

However, the Defendants’ contribution amount from 10,00 won to 20,000 won in a month is not larger than the total amount, and the Defendants’ contribution amount was made openly through ms transfer, most of the Defendants’ contribution act was terminated within a considerable period from the prosecution date of this case, and the Defendants’ failure to confirm the form and procedure of support to political parties through a political party’s association on or before March 2006. Although the Defendants failed to know of the difference between direct support of political parties and support through a political party’ association, it is difficult for the general public to understand the difference between the direct support of political parties and support through a political party’s association. The Defendants’ contribution act appears to have some aspects of trusting the Defendants’ explanation that the direct support of political parties is prohibited under the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, it is too harsh that the Defendants’ status is lost due to the sentence of a fine exceeding one million won on the part of the ○○○○○ party, the Defendants’ motive and circumstances of the crime in this case, and the motive and circumstances of the crime in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)

(1) Anyone (referring to a person who commits the relevant act of violation as a member of a political party, a supporters' association, a corporation or any other organization; hereinafter the same shall apply) who contributes or receives political funds by means not prescribed in this Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where anyone who contributes or receives political funds is a relative provided for in the provisions of Article 77 of the Civil Act.

Note 2) The part of the judgment below (B) and (c) The Defendants refer to the remaining Defendants except Defendant 82.

3) It is a separate issue to punish de facto joining of a person disqualified as a party member, such as joining a political party in violation of the prohibition of joining a political party.

Note 4) It can see that it is close to the meaning of paragraph 3 of the preceding paragraph.

Note 5) It shall be interpreted as a provision delegated to Presidential Decree, etc. any political act prohibited by paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 other than political act.