[1] The method of specifying the crime committed in violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice

[2] Whether the crime of election expenses disbursement under Article 258 (2) 1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Illegal Acts is established even in a case where a candidate had been unaware of the fact that the act of paying election expenses was committed by himself/herself (affirmative), and whether illegality is excluded in a case where a candidate confirmed the election expenses disbursement after the accountant in charge (negative)

[1] The crime of violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, which constitutes an inclusive one crime, is specified in the crime of violation of the Act on the Election of Public Officials, even though it is not specifically specified in the individual contribution act that constitutes a part of the crime, if the election, the time and completion period of the entire contribution act, the place and method of the contribution act, and the electors of the alternative election that constitutes the object

[2] The crime of election expenses disbursement under Articles 258(2)1 and 127(3) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is established where a person who is not an accountant in charge has paid election expenses. Even though the candidate was unaware of whether such an act was committed, since the candidate, who is not an accountant in charge, has paid the election expenses, the crime does not affect the establishment of such act, and even if the accountant in charge confirmed the election expenses disbursement of the candidate after the accountant in charge, the illegality does not disappear.

[1] Articles 113 and 257 (1) 1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 127 (3) and 258 (2) 1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election, Article 16 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Pyeongtaek Law Firm, Attorneys Regular Law Firm and 4 others

Seoul High Court Decision 99No1407 delivered on July 20, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the restriction on contribution under Articles 257 (1) 1 and 113 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act, as the candidate for the election of Gyeonggi-do Council members implemented on June 4, 1998, that he provided meals to the maximum electorate at the end of May 20, 1998 to the electorates from May 20, 1998 to June 3, 198. The crime of violation of the restriction on contribution under the comprehensive 1 crime is a crime of violation of the restriction on contribution since the defendant provided meals to the voters at the end of May 20, 1998, including the provision of meals. The crime of violation of the restriction on contribution under the comprehensive 1 crime is a specific crime because it is not specified in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, even if the size and amount of the Defendant’s above contribution act are small, in light of the legislative intent of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Unlawful Act intending to prevent any malpractice related to the election, it cannot be deemed that it does not violate the social rules as an act in accordance with good customs. In the same purport, the lower court’s conviction

The offense of election expenses disbursement prescribed in Articles 258(2)1 and 127(3) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice is established where a person who is not an accountant in charge has paid election expenses. Even though the defendant was unaware of whether such an act was an offense, if the defendant, not an accountant in charge, has paid election expenses, such an offense does not affect the establishment of such offense, and even if the accountant in charge confirmed the election expenses disbursement after the person in charge of accounting, the illegality thereof does not be excluded. In the same purport, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of the

The argument that the punishment of a fine of one million won imposed by the court below is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the ground of appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)