Defendant 1 and one other

Park Young-young (prosecution, public trial)

Attorneys Yellow-gu et al. and one other

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 in the Supreme Court and the appellate court’s judgment) is punished by imprisonment for eight months and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A penalty of KRW 16,500,000 shall be collected from Defendant 2.

피고인 1은 2012. 4. 11. 실시된 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 인천 서구·강화◇ 선거구에 출마하여 당선된 ○○○당 소속 국회의원 공소외 1의 회계책임자이고, 피고인 2는 선거컨설팅 용역업체인 ‘△△기획’의 실제 운영자이다.

1. Defendants’ receiving money and valuables related to the election campaign

Except as otherwise provided for in Acts, no person shall provide, express an intention to provide, or express an intention to provide money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, or promise, instruction, solicitation, mediation, request or receive such offer.

A. Defendant 1

On February 20, 2012, Defendant 1 entered into a so-called election consulting service contract with the knowledge that Defendant 2, who is the adviser of the Incheon City City Party, is a member of the Youth Association of ○○○○○ Incheon City Party, was a member of the so-called election consulting service contract to assist in an election campaign.

Defendant 1 had Defendant 2 conduct affairs, such as planning and production of promotional materials, along with the formulation of election strategies, and sent promotional materials of preliminary candidates to local voters around March 23, 2012, and submitted election campaign bulletins to the Reinforcement election commission around March 30, 2012, and completed most of the election consulting services around March 2012.

Nevertheless, Defendant 2 worked almost every day during the election campaign office from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012, which was the election campaign period, attended the election campaign meeting and proposed a change in the method of campaign by directly inspecting the election site, provided consultation on the public relations methods of telephone campaign personnel and the large volume of letters sent to the elector, provided advice on the counter candidate’s public opinion on the counter candidate’s public opinion, and provided a service related to the election campaign for three days including a campaign speech fee to support Nonindicted Party 1, and Defendant 1 remitted KRW 16,50,000 to Defendant 2 in relation to the above election campaign on April 24, 2012.

B. Defendant 2

Defendant 2, from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012, Defendant 2, who carried out business related to the same election campaign as the mentioned in the above paragraph (a), was transferred from Defendant 1 in relation to the said election campaign around April 24, 2012.

2. Crimes involving excessive disbursement of election expenses by Defendant 1;

국회의원 후보자의 회계책임자는 선거비용을 지출함에 있어 공고된 선거비용제한액의 200분의 1 이상을 초과하여 지출하면 아니 되고, 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 인천 서구·강화◇ 선거구의 선거비용제한액은 1억 9,700만 원이다.

On April 20, 2012, Defendant 1 reported the election expenses for the 19th National Assembly members to the election commission of the strengthened Military Election Commission. The accounting report was made that Defendant 1 paid KRW 179,326,190.

However, Defendant 1 entered into an election consulting service contract with Defendant 2 as described in subparagraph 1. A, and remitted the amount of KRW 5 million around February 24, 2012, KRW 10 million around March 20, 2012, KRW 6 million around March 29, 2012, KRW 3 million around March 30, 2012, KRW 1 million around April 2, 2012, KRW 300,000,000 around April 2, 2012, KRW 8 million around April 9, 2012, to the account in the name of Non-Indicted Party 5, the representative of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, etc., for the purpose of consultation on the formulation of election strategies, etc., the amount of such election campaign is an election campaign cost.

In addition, Defendant 1 paid additional KRW 16.5 million to Defendant 2 as election consulting expenses around April 24, 2012, as described in subparagraph 1. A. However, this constitutes election expenses with money and valuables provided in connection with election campaign, such as the statement in the same paragraph.

결국 피고인 1은 인천 서구·강화◇ 선거구의 선거비용 제한액인 1억 9,700만 원보다 31,826,190원(200분의 32.2)을 초과하여 선거비용을 지출하였다.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 17 and 18 and each part of the legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 10 (Provided, That the witness’s legal statement of Defendant 2 is limited to Defendant 1)

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against the defendant 1 and 2 in each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 18, 13, 12, 10, 19, and 3

1. Each written answer to the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Each statement for the preservation of election expenses, political funds revenue and expenditure book, copy of passbook 1, statement for the delivery of preliminary candidates, campaign bulletins, submission of election campaign bulletins, promotional materials, restricted amount of election expenses, etc., decision and public announcement, investigation report (information on the analysis of mobile phone contents by Defendant 2), investigation report (information on the analysis of mobile phone contents by Defendant 2), investigation report (explics related to election campaign out of the mobile phone text messages by Defendant 2), investigation report (Attachment of a letter of guidance on election expenses preservation by the Central Control Line), investigation report (Attachment of a letter of guidance on election expenses preservation by the Central Control Line), investigation report (report on the moving path during the election campaign period by Defendant 2), recording (the contents of Defendant 2

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 230(1)4, 135(3) (the point of providing money or goods related to election campaigns, the choice of imprisonment), 258(1)1, 122, and 121 (the point of excessive disbursement of election expenses and the choice of imprisonment) of the Public Official Election Act;

B. Defendant 2: Articles 230(1)6 and 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaigns and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to excessive disbursement of election expenses heavier than the quality of the crime)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 2: The latter part of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendants’ assertion as to the charge No. 1

1) Defendant 1

Defendant 1 paid KRW 16.5 million to Defendant 2, but this is not a payment for election campaign since the payment was made for the performance of the service in accordance with the election consulting contract.

2) Defendant 2

Defendant 2 received KRW 16.5 million from Defendant 1. However, Defendant 2’s payment for the promotional expenses to be paid in addition, rather than being paid for the election campaign from the beginning to the beginning, was partially paid for the promotional expenses to be paid during the election campaign period.

B. Defendant 1’s assertion as to the facts charged under paragraph (2)

Defendant 1 paid to Defendant 2 a sum of KRW 49.5 million ( KRW 33 million + KRW 16.5 million) as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged. However, this is a consideration for election consulting, such as the cost of planning and production of promotional materials, and thus, it does not constitute election expenses. Therefore, if it does not exceed the restricted amount of election expenses, and if the said money was at issue, it did not report it to the Election Commission (hereinafter “Election Commission”).

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

1) The term “election campaign” under Article 58(1) of the Public Official Election Act refers to any active and planned act that is necessary for obtaining or defeating the election of a specific candidate, and that is objectively recognized by the intention of promoting the election or defeat in the election. It is distinguishable from any act in preparation for an election campaign, which is an internal or procedural preparation for a future election campaign, or ordinary political party activities. However, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined whether the act is accompanied by not only by the name of the act, but also by the mode of the act, namely, the time, place, method, etc. of the act, by comprehensively observing whether it is an act to ensure the election or defeat of a specific candidate (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do301 Decided 14, 2005).

As such, the Supreme Court's opinion on the definition and method of judgment as well as the legal term, while the term "election consulting" or "election planning" or "election planning" is not only a legal concept, but also does not have a definition as to its contents or limit. Thus, the actual contents of the act should be determined differently depending on whether the act constitutes a simple preparation of election campaign, that is, an act of internal or procedural preparation for future election campaign, or an act accompanying an election campaign, that is, an act accompanying an election campaign, that is, a specific candidate's election or defeat. Further, if the act does not constitute an election campaign solely on the pretext of "election consulting" or "election planning," it should be determined differently depending on whether the act constitutes a simple preparation of election campaign, i.e., an act of internal or procedural preparation for future election," and if it does not constitute an election campaign, it should be determined differently depending on whether the act constitutes an

2) The crime of violation of Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act is subject to the punishment of offering money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, or expressing an intention to offer them, or promising to provide them. The punishment is not limited to offering money, goods, etc. during the election campaign period as prescribed by the above Act. The term "in relation to the election campaign" as prescribed by Article 135(3) of the same Act means that "in relation to the election campaign, the matters concerning the election campaign are motiveed for the election campaign" is more extensive than "for the election campaign," and even if there was no purpose of influencing the purpose or election, the act itself is set at the necessity to regulate the activities that are highly likely to infringe on the freedom and fairness of the election. Thus, the provision of money and valuables does not necessarily need to be the consideration for the election campaign, and it includes what relation to the election campaign, such as the consideration for providing information related to the election campaign, and the expenses for the persons engaged in the election campaign (Supreme Court Decision 910Do10Do010, Dec. 23, 2010)

B. The following circumstances are acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence’s substance.

1) Each of the statements and credibility of the persons concerned, including the Defendants, including the Defendants

A) On May 31, 2012, Defendant 1 entered into the so-called election consultation agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant consulting agreement”) with the election commission of the reinforcement military service on June 5, 2012, and Defendant 2 first made a statement. As can be seen through the following statements, Defendant 2 met Nonindicted 1 who is scheduled to participate in the 19th election campaign on December 201, 201, and Defendant 1, who is the accountant in charge of Nonindicted 1’s election, and Defendant 2, around February 20, 2012, attempted to advance the overall election campaign of Nonindicted 1’s candidate from the time of preliminary candidate to the end of the election campaign period, and paid 55 million won in return (hereinafter referred to as “instant consulting agreement”) to Defendant 2 as the first candidate’s active and continuous election campaign at the end of the election campaign period, and Defendant 2 paid 200,000 won to Defendant 2 for each of the aforementioned election campaign (hereinafter referred to as “the last day of the election campaign period”).

Defendant 2: “Around December 2011, Nonindicted Party 1 was considered to be “the same person.” (b) he was responsible for the planning of election on the ground that the candidate completed the election as well as having conviction that the candidate completed the election.” (c) “Election Planning” means all the campaign to make the candidate elected, including the establishment of election strategies, public relations, design, and election campaign methods, and one to another column for the election campaign of the preliminary candidate, and the designated area, the production of the preliminary candidate, the opening of the campaign materials, the preparation for the election campaign, and the society.” (d) Nonindicted Party 1 notified Defendant 1 of the candidate of the election campaign schedule and method; (e) “The candidate was to receive money from the design to have the candidate elected.” (e.g., the circumstances and directions of the candidate at the election campaign office, and (e) the method and direction of the election campaign,” and (e) Nonindicted Party 1 made efforts to take part in the election campaign within the election campaign region from 4 to 8 days before the election campaign period begins.”

Defendant 1: Defendant 1: “Defendant 2 tried to plan the overall election, namely, to establish a strategy for election campaign.” “The overall election is to help to take measures to cope with the press, to set up a way and direction for election campaign,” “The content of the contract shall be in full deposit with promotional materials, name cards, posters, official gazettes, and overall election.” “One day of Defendant 2 shall have worked almost every day in the election campaign office during the election campaign period for preliminary candidates and candidates, rather than the formulation of the election strategy.” “In addition to the formulation of the election strategy falling under the preparation for election campaign, it is true that Defendant 2 tried to have been present in the election campaign office for three months during the election campaign period for the preliminary candidates and candidates and to make a direct speech during the election campaign period for the public, and tried to have been present in the election campaign, and Defendant 2 tried to have been present in the election campaign office and to have been present in the election campaign every day, and there was a lot of additional reasons for Defendant 2 to have been requesting more than 300 weeks and more.

B) The Defendants’ above prior statement is a statement made in a far more free atmosphere than the investigative agency, and is a statement made prior to distortion, concealment, destruction, destruction, or manipulation of facts and evidence, etc., consistent with objective facts that cannot be seen, such as Defendant 2’s mobile phone call details, text messages, location tracking results, etc. (see, e.g., Defendant 2’s mobile phone contents analysis report, Defendant 2’s mobile phone contents analysis report during the election campaign period, Defendant 2’s mobile phone text messages, and investigation report, etc. on Defendant 2’s mobile phone contents analysis, etc.) are sufficient in light of the following.

C) In addition, even in the Defendants’ respective statements at the prosecutor’s office and Nonindicted 10, the head of planning office of Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 12, the head of the situation office, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 19, and Nonindicted 18, Defendant 2’s election campaigned to allow the election of Nonindicted 1 to be elected, actively and continuously, from the beginning of the official election campaign period (from March 31, 2012 to April 10, 2012) of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Council members, who belong to ○○○○○○○○ Party, to the court or prosecutor’s office of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 18, Defendant 2’s official election campaign.

○ 피고인 2의 검찰 진술 : “공소외 1 후보의 예비후보자 시절인 2012. 2. 20.경 컨설팅계약을 체결했는데, 그 업무는 선거운동 방향 제시, 후보 이미지 컨설팅, 공약·정책 개발, 여론조사, 선거운동 모니터링, 기타 선거운동 자문 등 선거컨설팅과 명함, 공보물 제작 등이다.”, “2012. 3. 22. 공소외 1 후보자의 선거사무소 개소 후 출근하여 기획실로 갔고, 상대 후보자의 네거티브 공세에 대한 대응책과 선거 전략을 수립하고 차량을 타고 이동하면서 선거운동원들을 모니터링하여 선거운동 방향과 전략을 수립하였다.”, “통상 저와 피고인 1, 공소외 10이 전략회의를 하고 가끔 구의원 공소외 3이 참석하였다.”, “선거 3∼4일 전 2∼3일간 1회씩 30∼40분 유세차량에서 연설하였다”, “개소식 후 피고인 1이 선거 종료시까지 계속 컨설팅을 요청하기에 컨설팅 비용을 더 달라고 하였더니 준다고 하여 계속 나가 컨설팅 업무를 한 것이다.”, “☆ 후보(공소외 1)에게 올인하였다.”, “유권자들에게 문자 메시지를 대량 발송할 때 문구를 자문하고, 전화홍보요원들의 통화내용, 말투, 방법 등을 자문하였다.”(이상 검찰 제1회 진술), “추가로 받은 돈에는 선거운동 대가가 포함되어 있다”, “선거운동 현장을 돌며 선거운동원을 모니터링하고, 선거유세도 하고, 선거대책회의에도 참석하였다.”(이상 검찰 제3회 진술)

Defendant 1’s prosecutor’s statement: “Defendant 2 provided full-time support to Nonindicted Party 1’s election campaign office. At the first half of the year, Defendant 2 entered almost every day after March 5, 2012,” “Defendant 2 prepared monitoring of election campaign workers and telephone promotion phrases together with Nonindicted Party 10, and directly participated in the election campaign conference on March 30, 2012,” and “Defendant 2 was present at the meeting of countermeasures at the court of first instance on March 30, 2012.” (The first prosecutor’s statement at the prosecution). “Defendant 2 proposed a change in the method of sports by inspecting Nonindicted Party 10 and on-site and discussed the method of telephone promotion and mass text sending text (the second prosecutor’s statement at the prosecution above).”

○ The legal statement of Nonindicted Party 10 by the chief of the planning office: “Defendant 2 does not agree with the fact that he/she attempted an election campaign, but did not agree with the consideration.”

○ Nonindicted 12’s prosecutor’s statement by the chief of the situation office: “Defendant 2 was in charge of name cards, promotional materials, posters, and the production of placards during the period of a preliminary candidate, and on the mother line, he was in charge of street oil.”

The prosecutorial statement by the head of the ○○ tax office Nonindicted 13: “The major persons related to the candidate election campaign for Nonindicted 1 was Nonindicted 1, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 13, 12, and 19, and Nonindicted 10, and Defendant 2 together with the Defendant 2,” and “Defendant 2 was in charge of planning the election, and was in charge of Nonindicted 1’s election campaign uniform at three to four times.”

○ Nonindicted Party 20 Nonindicted Party 20’s statement at the Prosecutor’s Office: “Defendant 2 made two to three-three-day speech at the post-election.”

○ Nonindicted 19’s prosecutor’s statement by the staff of Nonindicted 19: “Defendant 2 was present at the election campaign office of Nonindicted 1 candidate every day.”

○ Nonindicted 3’s prosecutor’s statement by Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City member: “Defendant 2 was present at the election countermeasure meeting of the candidate outside the public prosecution.”

Non-Indicted 18’s legal statement of the staff members of the ○○ Strengthening Military Force: “The election monitor deemed Defendant 2 at the election campaign office of Non-Indicted 1 candidate, and Defendant 2 appeared to have made a speech or interview at the head of the tax office.”

D) On the other hand, each of the statements by the Defendants and those by the above election campaign parties in the court and by the prosecution cannot be acknowledged as credibility because the statements are reversed by the situation or time after that time, and are inconsistent with the objective facts that are inconsistent with or cannot be understood as contradictory to the aforementioned objective facts, or there are many parts contrary to the social norms and ordinary common sense.

(1) The nature of 16.5 million won additionally received by Defendant 2

○○ Defendant 2: “ Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate, who has set up an election strategy and tactical, re-satisfyed in accordance with the strategy of the counter-party candidate. It was too difficult to demand additional expenses later.” “The party’s statement was made in terms of volunteer service but does not receive money in return,” and “The party’s statement was made in terms of volunteer service when residing at an election campaign office, but did not receive money.” (The party’s first statement), “The money additionally received is public relations expenses, such as banner, name, and publication, and election campaign money is also included in the remuneration for election campaign (the fifth statement of the prosecution office).”

○○ Defendant 1: Defendant 1: “The reasons for Defendant 2’s additional request is that Defendant 2 inspected an election campaign while going outside of the election campaign, made an open speech, and took overall charge of an election campaign every day after attending the election campaign.” “After entering the preliminary candidate’s registration, Defendant 2 tried to help the election campaign and to make an election campaign every day,” and “Although there were many high students and attempted to do so, there were excessive requests and disputes.” (B) ? “Defendant 2 considered that Defendant 1 had played a certain role in the election of a candidate for Nonindicted 1, 200,000 won,” “The report on the frontline was made at the cost of consulting, but did not want to do so in fact,” “The additional cost of the first prosecutor’s statement ? the additional cost of the Defendant 2,000,000 won,” and “The additional cost of the Defendant 2,000,000 won,” did not appear to have been given to the Defendant 2.

The chief of the planning office Non-Indicted 10: “The nature of the money that Defendant 2 received additionally” (the second statement of the Prosecutor’s Office) ? “Defendant 2 assisted Non-Indicted 1’s return to the candidate for the political party, public order, and good opinion for the development of policies, pledges, and slots” (the legal statement)

(2) Defendant 2’s reason for attending the election campaign office during the election campaign period

○○ Defendant 2: “After the opening ceremony of the election campaign office of the candidate for Nonparty 1, Defendant 1 continued to provide consulting services by changing the consulting cost to continue to request consultation until the election is completed” (the first statement of the Prosecutor’s Office) ? “I appear to have worked every day to receive money” (the third statement of the Prosecutor’s Office).

○ Defendant 1: “Defendant 2 did not have any particular work upon completion of the production of the official gazette at the end of March 2012. There was no reason why Defendant 2 would have worked later.” “after the end of March 2012, there was no reason for Defendant 1 to do so after the end of March 2012” (the first statement of the Prosecutor’s Office) ? “The work related to the production of the official gazette was in need of attendance.” (Legal statement)

The chief of the planning office Non-Indicted 10: “The defendant 2 remains in the election office” (the first statement of the Prosecutor’s Office), “The attendance was required for the production of a master box due to the change of design, etc.” (the legal statement)

(3) Whether Defendant 2 engaged in the development of pledges, policies, and public opinion pollss

○○ Defendant 2: “To report the results conducted at other places without conducting a direct public opinion poll, and to identify the weak points, and instruct the sportsmen to do so.”

○ Defendant 1: “There is no data, public opinion poll, or analysis data, etc. collected by Defendant 2 for the development of specific pledges” (the first statement of the Prosecutor’s Office) and the policies and pledges made by Defendant 2 (the first statement of the Prosecutor’s Office) ? “Defendant 2 provided an opinion on the development of policies and public pledge and election control b” (the legal statement)

○ Head of the Situation Office Nonindicted 12: “A defendant 2 conducts a public opinion poll, policy development research, etc. or has no memory.” (Public Prosecutor’s statement)

○ Nonindicted 10 of the planning office chief: “The printing data (the first half) sent from the ○○ Incheon City Party” (the second statement of the prosecutor’s office) ? “Defendant 2 presented good opinions on policies, pledges, and slots development” (legal statement).

(4) Whether Defendant 2 participated in the election countermeasure meeting

○○ Defendant 2: “At the time of the election affairs office, Nonindicted 3 was present at the meeting of the Gu Council members, by grasping the movement of the candidate and the circumstances of the other candidate, and at the meeting, presented the methods and directions of election campaigns” (the first statement of the Prosecutor’s Office), and “The ordinary low, Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 10 attended the strategic meeting and making it possible for the Gu Council members to participate.”

○ Defendant 1: “The reasons for Defendant 2’s additional demand for money is that Defendant 2 worked every day and took overall charge of an election campaign” (the first statement at the Preferred Party) and “Defendant 2 appeared at the Preferred Party meeting on March 30, 2012 (the first statement at the Prosecutor’s Office).

○ Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Council member Nonindicted 3: Defendant 2 was present at the election countermeasure meeting of the candidate outside the public prosecution (public prosecutor’s statement).

○ Head of planning office Nonindicted 10: “There is no accurate memory as to whether Defendant 2 participated in the election countermeasure conference on March 30, 2012” (legal statement).

○ Head of the Situation Office Nonindicted 12: “Non-Indicted 10 and Defendant 1 do not have a meeting of countermeasures or a strategic meeting together with Defendant 2” (public prosecutor’s statement)

(5) Whether Defendant 2 contributed to the election of Non-Indicted 1 candidate

○ Defendant 1 and the chief of planning office Nonindicted 10: “Defendant 2 contributed to the success of Nonindicted 1’s candidate” (each statutory statement)

(1) Non-Indicted 3 of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Council members: “Defendant 2 may not play a role in Gongcheon.” (Public Prosecutor’s Statements)

(ii) the details of major services provided by the election consulting firm, and the time the performance is completed;

The term “election consulting” or “election planning service” is the main contents of “development of campaign promises or policies, public opinion survey, publication of public opinion, election campaign bulletins, election campaign posters, etc.”, and Defendant 2 does not actually perform campaign promises, policy development, and public opinion survey. It is almost all that promotional materials, such as campaign bulletins, election campaign bulletins, and campaign posters, were produced. However, on March 23, 2012, Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate sent promotional materials to voters within the constituency and submitted election campaign bulletins to be sent to voters on March 30, 2012. As such, Defendant 2’s election consulting or election planning service was actually completed, and not only the Defendants but also Nonindicted Party 10 of the planning office of the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 12 of the situation office, and Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nonindicted Party 3 also made a statement to the same effect (each Defendant’s each prosecutor’s reply, Nonindicted Party 2’s interrogation protocol, Defendant 10 and Nonindicted Party 21’s protocol, Defendant 21 and Nonindicted Party 3.

(iii) policy and public policy development, failure to conduct public opinion poll services, and lack of organization and capacity to conduct such services.

A) The typical preparation for election campaigns among the election consulting or election planning services that Defendant 2 agreed to perform is the development of policies and pledges, and the public opinion poll.

B) Defendant 2 entered into the instant consulting contract in the name of “△△ Planning,” which he operated, and there was no employee other than the Defendant, and the said business did not have a separate office. The said Defendant also had experience such as the Chairperson of the Incheon City Youth Party, the head of the Incheon City Youth Support Group, the current head of the Incheon City Youth Support Group, and the current member of the Youth Committee of Incheon City City Youth Committee. However, Defendant 2 did not have an organization or ability to engage in the field of pledge or policy development (including Nonindicted 17’s legal statement of the employee of the Incheon City Line, Defendant 2’s letter of answer, and the first prosecutor’s interrogation protocol).

(iv) additional payments and timing for payment of non-obligatory money;

From February 24, 2012 to April 9, 2012, Defendant 1 did not have any obligation to pay more money by completing the payment of the full amount of KRW 55 million agreed upon in the instant consulting agreement to Defendant 2. However, Defendant 1 additionally paid KRW 16.5 million to Defendant 2’s personal deposit account on April 24, 2012 (part of Defendant 2’s legal statement, Defendant 1’s first prosecutor’s interrogation protocol).

(v) attempt to distort, destroy, destroy, or manipulate facts and evidence.

A) Around August 2012, when search and seizure of Defendant 2’s office at an investigative agency, Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate and Nonindicted Party 1’s head of planning office of the election campaign office for Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1’s head of planning office of the election campaign office for Nonindicted Party 1 had been organized, planned, and actively attempted to distort, destroy, destroy, and manipulate the facts and evidence in a systematic manner, planning, and active manner, including: (a) Nonindicted Party 1 candidate and Nonindicted Party 1’s head of planning office for the election campaign office almost every day; (b) Nonindicted Party 2’s attorney from the candidate’s side of the election campaign office; (c) requested other relevant persons to be aware of the contents of the statement; and (d) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s written opinion; and (d) prepared and delivered false data on policy development or public opinion poll; and (d) Defendant 2 also attempted to distort, destroy, and manipulate the facts and evidence in a way that threatens Nonindicted Party 1 candidate’s side.

B) If Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate paid KRW 16.5 million to Defendant 2 or reported the election expenses, it is difficult to understand what is the reasons why Nonindicted Party 1 should distort, distort, destroy, or manipulate the factual relations, etc. as above.

6) The inevitability of reporting expenses incurred outside an election

The candidate Non-Indicted 1’s additional payment of KRW 33 million and KRW 16.5 million paid to Defendant 2 in accordance with the instant consulting agreement was made from the political fund account of Non-Indicted 1’s supporters’ association managed by Defendant 1, the accountant in charge, and thus, it is inevitable to report it on his front-time. However, in the event of an election campaign, the illegal election expenses are paid in return for the election campaign, and promotional materials-related production expenses, and if the amount exceeds the limit of the election expenses regardless of what is the legitimate election expenses (the legal statement of Non-Indicted 17, the employee in charge of Chocheon-si). As such, there was a need to report it to the non-election expenses under the name of “election strategies and consulting expenses”, which is conceptualized

7) Cases of reporting election expenses to other candidates

Other candidates in the Incheon area, which participated in the 19th National Assembly election, reported most of the election planning cost included in the production cost of the campaign material, and reported it separately to the public opinion poll cost, it is not a case of reporting it to the out-of-election cost under the pretext of consultation cost (in Incheon City, Non-Indicted. 17 and Non-Indicted. 18, respectively, of the public opinion poll staff in the 19th National Assembly Members

8) An attempt to reduce election expenses

Defendant 1, around February 20, 2012, entered into the instant consulting contract with Defendant 2, made a verbal contract with Defendant 2 at KRW 55 million, including consulting cost, KRW 8 million, and KRW 47,00,000,000,000,000 for planning and production cost of election campaign materials. However, in order to reduce election expenses during the period of the election campaign, Defendant 1 requested and received a written estimate to reduce the planning and production cost of election campaign materials at KRW 30,00,000,000, and received delivery (Defendant 2’s statutory statement and the 25,000,000 prosecutor’s protocol).

C. Judgment on the assertion of the facts charged under paragraph (1)

B. According to the above reasoning, Defendant 2’s act constitutes “act accompanying the candidate’s election or defeatment” in light of the time, place, method, etc., and KRW 16.5 million additionally received by Defendant 1, the above Defendant’s act constitutes “in relation to election campaign” under Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, namely, “in relation to election campaign,” and the amount received by Defendant 2 as the motive for election campaign,” and this part of the Defendants’ assertion is unacceptable.

D. Determination as to the assertion of the facts charged under paragraph (2)

1) 33 million won

Defendant 1’s payment of KRW 33 million to Defendant 2 is part of the service price paid under the instant consulting agreement. However, by March 30, 2012, Defendant 2 performed by Defendant 2 until the said service was actually completed, such as planning and production of campaign materials, such as election campaign bulletins, campaign posters, and campaign posters, and the establishment of methods and direction for election campaigns. Even if there are almost no or some preparatory acts for pure election campaigns, they are merely acts performed as part of the election campaign in the course of conducting the election campaign. Furthermore, the duties performed after March 31, 2012, which was the beginning of the election campaign period, are typical acts. Ultimately, the above KRW 33 million constitutes election campaign expenses.

2) 16.5 million won

As seen above, 16.5 million won paid by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 is the expenses spent illegally in relation to election campaign in violation of the Public Official Election Act, and thus constitutes election expenses.

Public Official Election Act strictly limits the act of receiving money and valuables in relation to the election so that the election can be held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and the act of violating it is required to be punished strictly.

In this case, the Defendants received money and valuables under the ambiguous concept of election consulting, thereby making the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act as above, and the amount received is also 16.5 million won.

Defendant 1: (a) When the prosecution seizes and seizes Defendant 2’s office; (b) as well as the persons related to the election campaign office for Nonindicted Party 1’s candidate, Defendant 2 had almost the same day been convened to the prosecution; and (c) during that process, Nonindicted Party 1’s attorney-at-law was appointed from the side of the candidate for Nonindicted Party 1; (d) demanded other relevant persons to be aware of the details of the statement and the written opinion by Defendant 1; and (e) prepared and delivered false data on policy development or public opinion polls, etc.; and (e) demanded Defendant 2 to make a statement by threatening Nonindicted Party 1 to receive KRW 16.5 million; and (e) tried to distort, distort, destroy, or manipulate evidence and to make a statement by threatening Nonindicted Party 2’s candidate; and (e) did not have any attitude to commit a crime, such as continuing to defend himself without rationality in this court. In addition, the candidate’s accountant in charge also reduced the use of the restricted amount of election expenses and reported it.

Considering the above circumstances, in the case of Defendant 1, the sentence of imprisonment was inevitable due to the nature of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, but the sentence was determined in consideration of the initial crime without any previous conviction, and the act committed for Nonindicted 1, who is not the said Defendant himself, was committed for the said candidate.

In the case of Defendant 2, the punishment shall be imposed in consideration of the following facts: (a) the act of destroying evidence was committed by Nonindicted 1’s election campaign; (b) the act of destroying evidence was committed; and (c) the act was committed by Nonindicted 1’s election campaign; and (d) cooperation in the destruction of facts and evidence; (c) the act of destroying evidence was committed by Nonindicted 1; and (d) the act was committed by Nonindicted 1’s primary offender without any criminal record

Judges Song Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)