Defendant 1 and four others

Periodical (prosecution, public trial)

Attorney Lee E-soo et al.

Defendant 1 as to the crime set forth in Article 1(a) of the holding, Defendant 1 as to the crime set forth in Article 1(b) through (e), 4 and 5(a) of the holding, Defendant 2 as to the crime set forth in the holding, Defendant 3 as to the fine of KRW 4,000,000, Defendant 4 as to the fine of KRW 2,000,000,000, and Defendant 5 as to the crime set forth in Article 1(b) of the holding, respectively, shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,50,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

630,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 5.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fines.

1. Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct

The Defendant was reported as an election campaign manager and a person in charge of accounting of Nonindicted 2, who was a candidate for the 19th National Assembly member from December 13, 2011 to April 5, 2012.

(a) Unlawful distribution of documents;

1) On December 27, 2011, the Defendant, at the 19th election campaign office in the 19th election of the National Assembly member, △△△△△△, and Nonindicted 2 preliminary candidate in the △△△△△△ election district (affiliated with the dedicated party) located in Chungcheongnam-nam ( Address 1 omitted), requested the printing office of the 19th election of the National Assembly member, △△△△△△, and Nonindicted 2 preliminary candidate in the △△△△△△△ election district to produce 100 copies of the annual summering, stating “Influence, Nonindicted 2d.” and sent 1,000 copies of the year to the ○○, △△△△△, △△△△, and △△△△△, which was extracted from the phone

Accordingly, the Defendant did not distribute a document indicating the name of the candidate (including a person wishing to become a candidate) to the election day from 180 days before the election day to the election day, but did not distribute the document in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

2) 피고인은 2012. 1. 2.경 경남 (주소 1 생략) 소재 제19대 국회의원선거 ○○·△△·◇◇ 선거구 공소외 2 예비후보자(◎◎◎당 소속)의 선거사무소 등지에서 ‘▷▷▷▷▷’ 인쇄소에 의뢰하여 “힘찬 한해 되소서. (중략) 공소외 2 드림.”이라고 기재된 연하장 9,000장을 제작하여, 2012. 1. 10.경 전화번호부 등을 보고 무작위로 추출한 ○○·△△·◇◇ 선거구민 9,000여 명에게 그 연하장 9,000장을 우편으로 발송하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not distribute a document indicating the name of the candidate (including a person wishing to become a candidate) to the election day from 180 days before the election day to the election day, but did not distribute the document in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

(b) Violation against prohibition on contribution acts;

The Defendant, around April 7, 2012, placed KRW 1,00,000 in an envelope in cash, on the ground that Defendant 2 (it is not an election campaign worker as a person in charge of accounting of the candidate’s supporters’ association) is attempting to carry out Nonindicted 2’s election campaign at the election campaign office located in Chungcheongnam-nam (No. 1 omitted) around April 7, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant did not make a contribution act for the candidate with respect to the election, but made a contribution act to the defendant 2.

C. Provision of legal allowances and other money and valuables to the election campaign workers Nonindicted 6

1) Provision of 4,00,000 won on the pretext of a speech;

On April 2, 2012, at the election campaign office of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 6, the Defendant heard from Nonindicted 6 the phrase “at the time when a candidate (Nonindicted 2) was elected with a large number of votes,” and expressed to Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 6 the intention of offering money and valuables.”

Then, between April 11, 2012 and May 10, 2012, the election day, the Defendant granted KRW 4,00,000 in cash to Nonindicted 6 in consideration of Nonindicted 2’s speech at the above election campaign office, Changwon, and Gyeongnam (hereinafter omitted).

(ii)providing meal expenses of KRW 78,00;

In addition, between March 29, 2012 and April 10, 2012, the election campaign period, the Defendant, as well as Nonindicted 6’s legal allowances and actual expenses (including KRW 20,000 per day) equivalent to the public official travel expense provision, totaling KRW 30,000,000 per day, which is allowed to pay for the election campaign workers and KRW 710,000 per day, decided to transfer the legal allowances and actual expenses of KRW 910,000 per day to Nonindicted 6’s account around April 19, 2012, the Defendant actually remitted Nonindicted 6’s legal allowances and actual expenses (including KRW 910,00,000 per day) for the election campaign workers (=70,000 per day) on April 19, 2012.

Even if Nonindicted 6 did not pay additional meal expenses, Nonindicted 11 paid the meal expenses equivalent to 78,00 won per day (6,000 won per day) to Nonindicted 6 who was accompanying Nonindicted 2’s campaign speech through Nonindicted 11.

3) Sub-determination

As a result, the Defendant provided money equivalent to KRW 4,078,00 in addition to legal allowances and actual expenses, even though no one could provide money in connection with the election campaign regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, and compensation for volunteer service, except for the case of providing allowances, actual expenses, etc. under the Public Official Election Act.

(d) Excessive disbursement of election expenses;

From December 27, 2011 to April 5, 2012, the Defendant spent in excess of KRW 236,00,532,521 - 236,00,000, which was the restricted amount of election expenses as indicated in the following table (unit: KRW 6,100,588, which was the aggregate of the additional aggregate amount indicated in the following table (unit: KRW 21,568,067 + KRW 225,856,800 + the amount of election expenses accounting report in excess of KRW 220,532,521 - 236,00,000, which was the restricted amount of election expenses announced by the ○ election commission on December 1, 2011.

본문내 포함된 표 순번 선거비용 신고금액 선거비용 실사금액 추가 합산 금액 비고 항목 금액 1 선거비용(유세차량-2대분) 공소외 1 주식회사 12,306,667 14,200,000 1,893,333 정치자금으로 신고된 부분이 선거비용에 해당함 선거비용 외 정치자금(유세차량 임대-선거기간 외) 공소외 1 주식회사 1,893,333 2 선거비용(연설·대담용 차량 임차비) 공소외 3 150,000 150,000 미신고 금액 3 선거비용(유세차량-계약금) □□□□□□ 1,400,000 정치자금으로 신고된 부분이 선거비용에 해당함 선거비용(유세차량-잔금) □□□□□□ 10,141,176 선거비용 외 정치자금(유세차량-선거기간 외 임대) □□□□□□ 4,658,824 4,658,824 4,658,824 선거비용(유세차량 계약금) □□□□□□ 3,600,000 4 선거비용(선거사무원 공소외 29 수당) 공소외 29 910,000 910,000 910,000 추후 신고된 금액 5 선거비용 현금 식비(선거사무장 피고인 1) 160,000 160,000 미신고 금액 6 선거비용 현금 다과비 257,000 257,000 미신고 금액 7 선거비용(예비후보자 홍보물 발송비) ◇◇우체국 857,160 513,000 1,541,160 미신고 금액 1,028,160 각 추가 8 선거비용(선거사무원 피고인 5 법정수당 외 금품제공) 피고인 5 700,000 700,000 미신고 금액 9 선거비용 (△△ 선거사무원들 식비 대납) 공소외 7 50,000 50,000 미신고 금액 〃 30,000 30,000 미신고 금액 〃 40,000 40,000 미신고 금액 공소외 9 70,000 70,000 미신고 금액 공소외 10 70,000 70,000 미신고 금액 공소외 8 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 〃 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 〃 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 〃 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 10 선거비용 [○○ 선거사무원(댄스팀) 4명 수당] 공소외 22 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 공소외 23 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 공소외 24 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 공소외 25 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 11 선거비용 외 정치자금 (공소외 2 연하장 1,000장 제작, 발송) ◁◁◁ (제작비용) 400,000 400,000 400,000 정치자금으로 신고된 부분이 선거비용에 해당함 ◇◇◇◇ 우체국 (발송비용) 249,750 249,750 미신고 금액 12 선거비용 (공소외 2 연하장 9,000장 제작, 발송) ▷▷▷▷▷ (제작비용) 3,240,000 3,240,000 미신고 금액 우체국 (발송비용) 2,430,000 2,430,000 미신고 금액 13 선거비용 [선거사무원(연설원) 공소외 6 법정수당 외 금품제공] 공소외 6(연설 수고비) 4,000,000 4,000,000 미신고 금액 공소외 6 (식비 대납) 78,000 78,000 미신고 금액 합계 21,568,067 6,100,588(주1)초과지출

Note 1) 6,100,588

(e) Providing extra legal allowances to election campaign workers in △△ election campaign liaison offices (additional payment of food expenses);

From March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012, the election campaign period for the National Assembly members of the 19th National Assembly, the Defendant paid the statutory allowances and actual expenses, including the food cost of KRW 20,000 per day, to Nonindicted 2’s △△△△ election campaign workers, and Nonindicted 7, an election campaign worker of Nonindicted 2’s △△△△△ election campaign liaison office, but additionally paid KRW 50,000 per day through Nonindicted 20, including the additional payment of KRW 50,000 per day. As indicated below, the Defendant additionally paid the KRW 340,000 per day to four of the said election campaign workers’ election campaign

본문내 포함된 표 순번 선거사무원 일시, 장소 금액(원) 식비 제공자 1 공소외 7 2012. 4. 3.경 (이하 생략) 소재 △△ 선거연락소 앞에 주차한 봉고차 안 50,000 공소외 20 2 〃 2012. 4. 8.경 같은 곳 30,000 〃 3 〃 2012. 4. 9.경 같은 곳 40,000 〃 4 공소외 9 2012. 4. 3.경 (이하 생략)소재 △△시장 안 70,000 공소외 21 5 공소외 10 〃 70,000 〃 6 공소외 8 2012. 3. 30.경 (주소 3 생략)에 주차한 봉고차 안 20,000 〃 7 〃 2012. 4. 2.경 위 (이하 생략) 버스주차장 20,000 〃 8 〃 2012. 4. 5.경 위와 같은 곳 20,000 〃 9 〃 2012. 4. 8.경 위 (이하 생략) 소재 ♤♤면사무소 앞 20,000 〃 합계 340,000

Accordingly, the Defendant provided 340,000 won as above, although no one could provide money or goods in connection with election campaign regardless of the pretext, except for the case of providing allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits under the Public Official Election Act.

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant is an accountant in charge of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association.

(a) A person in charge of accounting of a candidate’s supporters’ association to run in an election for public office shall receive and disburse political funds only through the deposit account reported to the competent election commission;

Nevertheless, at the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2 located in around March 28, 2012, the Defendant received cash of KRW 29,700,000 from 36 persons at the opening of the election campaign office and received cash of KRW 29,70,000 from 36 persons at the opening of the election campaign office,” and Defendant 1 received cash of KRW 29,70,000 from Defendant 1 at the same place around April 7, 2012, and Defendant 1’s statement that “I need not have any money. I will have to have it.” The Defendant received KRW 4,00,000 in cash, and received KRW 33,70,000 in total for political funds twice, but he did not deposit it in the deposit account reported to the competent election campaign commission.

(b) Where a person in charge of accounting of a candidate's supporters' association in an election for public office receives and disburses political funds, he/she shall submit receipts and evidential documents when he/she makes an accounting report on the revenue and expenditure of political funds to the competent election commission by April 31, 2012, which is 30 days from the date on which the supporters' association is registered, until April 31, 2012, which is 30 days from the election day

The Defendant received KRW 29,700,000 in cash from 36 persons at the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2, located at around March 28, 2012, from Defendant 1, the election campaign manager at the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2, located at around ( Address 1 omitted) around 2012, after hearing the horses, and receiving KRW 29,70,000 in cash from Defendant 1 at the same place on April 7, 2012, and Defendant 1 received money from Defendant 1 at the same place.

In addition, the Defendant, at the seat of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association office located in the same place as the above election campaign office, around January 17, 2012, set up a banner of the supporters’ association and the entrance signboard of the supporters’ association, and advertised five newspapers of the supporters’ association over five times from February 6, 2012 to April 9, 2012, spent KRW 2,650,000, including the installation cost of banners and the advertising cost of newspaper.

Nevertheless, while making an accounting report to the competent election commission by no later than May 11, 2012, the Defendant failed to submit receipts and evidential documents related to the revenue and expenditure of political funds [the revenue and expenditure of political funds amounting to KRW 33,70,000, KRW 2,890,000 (=240,000 + KRW 2,650,00)].

(c) When any supporters' association receives support payments, it shall issue or issue political fund receipts to supporters by 30 days from the date on which it receives support payments;

Nevertheless, around March 28, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 29,700,000 in cash from 36 persons at the opening of an election campaign office, and received KRW 29,70,000 in cash from Defendant 1 at the election campaign office of the 19th National Assembly member, △△△△△, and △△△△△, located in the 19th election campaign in the 19th election campaign in Gangnam ( Address 1 omitted) around March 28, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 29,70,000 in cash from Defendant 1 at the same place on the same day, and issued money from Defendant 1 at the △△△, △△, and △△△, and did not issue cash receipts or issue political funds receipts for two occasions.

3. Defendant 3’s sole criminal conduct

From April 6, 2012, the Defendant is a person who was reported as an accountant in charge of the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2 in the local constituency for the National Assembly member of 19th to 19th, 100.

On May 11, 2012, the Defendant entered and omitted the details of election expense disbursement equivalent to KRW 20,80,057 in total, as indicated below, in order to conceal that the election expense was paid in excess of the restricted amount of election expenses, while making an accounting report on the election expense of Nonindicted Party 2 in the ○○○ Election Management Committee located in the Republic of Korea ( Address 2 omitted) around 1, 2012.

본문내 포함된 표 순번 선거비용 신고금액 선거비용 실사금액 추가 합산금액 비고 항목 금액 1 선거비용 (유세차량-2대분) 공소외 1 주식회사 12,306,667 14,200,000 1,893,333 정치자금으로 신고된 부분이 선거비용에 해당함 선거비용 외 정치자금 (유세차량 임대-선거기간 외) 공소외 1 주식회사 1,893,333 2 선거비용 (연설·대담용 차량 임차비) 공소외 3 150,000 150,000 미신고 금액 3 선거비용 (유세차량-계약금) □□□□□□ 1,400,000 정치자금으로 신고된 부분이 선거비용에 해당함 선거비용(유세차량-잔금) □□□□□□ 10,141,176 선거비용 외 정치자금(유세차량-선거기간 외 임대) □□□□□□ 4,658,824 4,658,824 4,658,824 선거비용(유세차량 계약금) □□□□□□ 3,600,000 4 선거비용 현금 식비(선거사무장 피고인 1) 160,000 160,000 미신고 금액 5 선거비용 현금 다과비 398,990 398,990 미신고 금액 6 선거비용(예비후보자 홍보물 발송비) ◇◇우체국 857,160 513,000 1,541,160 미신고 금액 1,028,160 각 추가 7 선거비용(선거사무원 피고인 5 법정수당 외 금품제공) 피고인 5 700,000 700,000 미신고 금액 8 선거비용(△△ 선거사무원들 식비 대납) 공소외 7 50,000 50,000 미신고 금액 〃 30,000 30,000 미신고 금액 〃 40,000 40,000 미신고 금액 공소외 9 70,000 70,000 미신고 금액 공소외 10 70,000 70,000 미신고 금액 공소외 8 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 〃 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 〃 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 〃 20,000 20,000 미신고 금액 9 선거비용[○○ 선거사무원(댄스팀) 4명 수당] 공소외 22 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 공소외 23 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 공소외 24 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 공소외 25 140,000 140,000 미신고 금액 10 선거비용 외 정치자금(공소외 2 연하장 1,000장 제작, 발송) ◁◁◁(제작비용) 400,000 400,000 400,000 정치자금으로 신고된 부분이 선거비용에 해당함 ◇◇◇◇우체국(발송비용) 249,750 249,750 미신고 금액 11 선거비용(공소외 2 연하장 9,000장 제작, 발송) ▷▷▷▷▷(제작비용) 3,240,000 3,240,000 미신고 금액 우체국(발송비용) 2,430,000 2,430,000 미신고 금액 12 선거비용[선거사무원(연설원) 공소외 6 법정수당 외 금품제공] 공소외 6(연설 수고비) 4,000,000 4,000,000 미신고 금액 공소외 6(식비 대납) 78,000 78,000 미신고 금액 합계 20,800,057

4. Joint criminal conduct by Defendants 1 and 3

around April 30, 2012, at the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2 located in Chungcheongnam-gu ( Address 1 omitted), the Defendants received through Nonindicted Party 32 from the 18’s agent Nonindicted Party 18’s agent, Nonindicted Party 32, a vehicle leasing a vehicle leasing a vehicle leasing the election vehicle, the Defendants: (a) in collusion, leased the vehicle for speech and interview to Nonindicted Party 2’s candidate on the Internet; (b) on March 30, 2012, the △△△△△△△, using the contract form, leased the vehicle for speech and interview from March 29, 2012 to April 13, 2012; and (c) made a written agreement to receive KRW 19,800,000 in consideration of the agreement; and (d) made a campaign speech and interview to Nonindicted Party 2’s candidate for the campaign speech and interview with Nonindicted Party 2 for 30 days from March 29, 2012 to 30 days from February 21, 2018.

However, in fact, the contract was prepared in a genuine form to the effect that Dol-gu did not lease the vehicle for 2.5t speech or interview and that Dol-gu would receive KRW 19,800,000 on the condition that the vehicle for 1t campaign speech or interview is leased from March 30, 2012 to April 10, 2012. However, as the excess election expenses are anticipated, Defendant 1 would demand Nonindicted 32 to prepare a false contract with the content of increasing the lease period, etc., and Defendant 3 would submit a false contract to the election commission of ○○-Gun, in collusion with Defendant 3 to submit it as evidentiary documents, and as seen above, the lease period was extended to April 13, 2012, and a written estimate was prepared in falsity).

As a result, the Defendants conspired to disburse political funds in relation to election expenses by the person in charge of accounting, the receipts and other documentary evidence should be provided. The Defendants entered false statements in the contract, which is the documentary evidence, and written estimate.

5. Defendant 1, 4, and 5

A. Defendant 1 and 4's co-principal

The Defendants conspired to appoint Nonindicted 2 as the election campaign workers of Nonindicted 2’s election campaign office located at around May 3, 2012, Defendant 5 made a report on the election campaign period (from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012) of the 19th National Assembly member election campaign period (from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012) by only one day from March 29, 2012; and the remaining period, on the ground that Defendant 5 carried out an election campaign of Nonindicted 2, such as the so-called “resources”, and the long distance of about 10 days, without reporting, remitted KRW 70,000 to Defendant 5’s account in the name of Defendant 4 in the name of allowances.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to offer money or goods in connection with the election campaign regardless of the pretext, except for the case of offering allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits under the Public Official Election Act, but provided the above Defendant 5 with the above 630,000 won (=the above 700,000 won - the statutory allowances per day reported as election workers).

B. Defendant 5

The Defendant received the above KRW 630,00 from Defendant 1 and 4 on the date, time, place, and place mentioned in the above paragraph (a).

Accordingly, the defendant received money and valuables not specified in the Public Official Election Act in relation to the election campaign.

[No. 1-A. 1] - Evidence records shall be recorded in the original District Prosecutors' Office Mountainous District Court Decision 3903, 5953, 2012]

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 33 and Defendant 2 concerning the preparation of a judicial police assistant

1. Each written answer to Defendant 1, Nonindicted 34, and Defendant 2 regarding the preparation of the election commission of ○○ Military;

1. Each letter of confirmation prepared by Nonindicted 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44

1. Public announcement of the election campaign manager’s report on Defendant 1 and the registration of Nonindicted 2 preliminary candidates

1. Guidance on the election law, questioning processing books, submission of data from 00 military election commissions, annual summerings, response to civil petitions, fileers, reports related to the deletion, Belgium's list, list of Saemaul leaders, list of 0, 00, 180 days before the election day, 180 days before the election day, and 180 days before the election day, and reports related to the removal of files, 00, 100, 2000, 200

1. An investigation report (with respect to the confirmation of the list of addressees and the address of the endors);

[Attachment 1-A(2) - Evidence records of the same branch office shall be sentenced to 7476 of 2012]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. The first interrogation protocol of Defendant 1 prepared by the public prosecutor, the first interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 45 prepared by the public prosecutor, the second interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 33 prepared by the public prosecutor, the second interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 2 prepared by the public prosecutor, the copy of some interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 prepared by the public prosecutor, and the part of the protocol of statement of

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 45

1. A copy of a simplified receipt, a copy of Nonindicted 46’s transaction details, a copy of the cardland’s book, a copy of Nonindicted 47’s transaction details, a copy of Nonindicted 48(Nonindicted 33 Mos) passbook, Nonindicted 47(Nonindicted 33) cash services

[Attachment 1-B, C - Evidence records of the same branch office, 2012, 3903, 5953]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. The third suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor as to Defendant 1, part of the first suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor as to Defendant 2, each protocol of protocol prepared by the public prosecutor as to Defendant 2, and part of the third suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the public prosecutor as to Defendant 6

1. Recording recording recording (Defendant 1);

1. Analysis of the details of the passbook (Non-Indicted 2), the details of support payments, the budget bill for preparation for the appearance of election campaign workers, etc., the submission for preservation of election expenses, the report of the election campaign manager's seal, the filing of the report on the seizure of the election campaign office, the submission of Nonindicted 200 election campaign funds, the submission of expense documents, the details of future payments, political funds, volunteer-related expenses, organization network, election campaign workers and volunteers, office list, election campaign workers and volunteers, the details of Defendant 1's telephone account analysis, inquiries about the telephone details, each receipt of support payments, each receipt book, deposit receipt book, loan receipt, loan certificate, resident service center and the KT MT mountainous district office, and the hearing report on the statement by telephone, Defendant 1-Report on the confirmation of the details of Non-Indicted 6's call call (1), Non-Indicted 6's mobile phone analysis data

1. Each investigation report (the attachment of the result of the search and seizure of the election campaign office, the election campaign manager, the accountant in charge of the election campaign office of Nonindicted 2, the election campaign manager of the election campaign office of Nonindicted 2, the confirmation of accounting manager, the manager in charge of the election campaign office of Nonindicted 2, the liaison office of △△△△, the election campaign manager of the election campaign office of Nonindicted 2, the confirmation of the person in charge of accounting - the submission of the report on appointment and replacement of the election campaign manager

[Judgment 2] - Evidence records of No. 3903, 5953, and 6512 of 2012] of the same branch office

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Each part of the prosecutor’s protocol of statement against Defendant 2;

1. A report on appointment of Defendant 2 in charge of accounting, a deposit passbook (excluding Nonparty 2), the details of support payments, political funds, the details of deposits and withdrawals of support payments, revenues and disbursements of supporters' associations, the overall statement of expenditure, the hearing of telephone statements from the community service center and the KT MM mountainous district and the report on the accounting of supporters' associations, the filing of reports on the details of advertising expenses of the supporters' associations of Nonindicted 2,

1. A written accusation;

1. Review of an accounting report and results of an accounting report, one copy of a report (excluding the current status of contributors), three copies of written confirmations, copies of newspapers and advertisements, two copies of collected materials, such as supporters' association office signboards, etc., submission of materials for the registration of supporters' associations, reports on the details of political funds account files after an accounting report, the details of publication of newspapers of supporters' associations, advertising fees, advertising fees, advertising dates, payment dates, cash payments dates and receipts, cash payments (total amount of KRW 41,70,00), the current status of issuing receipt of political funds for cash support payments, receipt of revenues of supporters' associations, general records of general records of employment of supporters' associations, collection of revenue of supporters' associations, filing of a report on the collection of public relations signboards of the 000 Election Commission, Nonindicted 49 statements and answers to the Election Commission, each investigation report (the date of issuance of political funds receipts submitted by suspects, the confirmation of preliminary candidates and the date of registration of supporters' associations

[The facts of paragraph 1-d, E, 3, 4, and 5 in the printing-si - Evidence records of the same branch office shall be sentenced to the punishment of 6053, 10537, 10538 in 2012]

1. The legal statement of the defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 in part;

1. The witness Nonindicted 49 and 50’s legal statement

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of some defendants 1, 3, and 4 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Copy of each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant 3 prepared by the prosecutor, and a copy of each protocol of examination of the prosecutor against Nonindicted 6 and Defendant 3

1. Part of the first protocol of examination of the suspect in charge of prosecution officials, protocol of examination of the suspect in charge of prosecution officials, protocol of examination of some suspect in charge of prosecution officials, protocol of examination of the suspect in charge of prosecution officials, and protocol of partial statement of the defendant 1 in preparation of

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 49, 18, 51, 32, 52, 53, 10, 7, 8, and 26 prepared by the Prosecutor General; each written statement of Nonindicted 55, 29, 17, 55, 3, 49, 32, 16, Defendant 2, and 56 prepared by the Prosecutor General; each written statement of Nonindicted 21, 20, 27, and 22 prepared by the Prosecutor General;

1. The written answer to Nonindicted 18 and 32 prepared by the election commission in Gyeongnam-do, the written answer to Nonindicted 51 prepared by the election commission in △△-gun, and the written answer to Nonindicted 55 prepared by the election commission in ○○-Gun;

1. Each letter of confirmation drawn up in Nonindicted 52, 57, 17, 7, 58, 59, 9, 10, and 8

1. 고발장, 공소외 2 당선자 선거비용 추가 합산 내역, 조사결과 보고서, 수사보고(선거비용제한액 2억 3,600만 원 공고문 등 첨부), 선거비용 제한액 등 결정공문, 선거비용 제한액 등 공고공문, 수사보고(예비후보자 홍보물 발송비 축소신고 확인-예비후보자 홍보물 발송 신고서, 우체국 발송비 영수증 첨부), 공소외 2 예비후보자 홍보물 발송 신고서, 우체국 영수증 3장 사본, 수사보고(선거유세차량 3대의 차량등록원부 첨부), 수사보고(이메일 압수수색영장 집행결과 보고), △△군 연락소 정치자금 예상 사용내역, ◇◇군 연락소 정치자금 예상 사용금액, 선거사무관계자 수당 실비 지급 명세서, 수사보고(식대, 다과비 액수 산정표 작성), 금전출납부 사본, LG+ 웹하드 회신 자료, 통신자료제공 요청서 및 회신서 일체, 수사보고(선거사무소 ‘다과료’ 관련 회계보고서 사본 첨부), 정치자금 수입, 지출부, 세금계산서 및 은행 거래 명세표, 수사보고(공소외 1 회사 납품대금 14,200,000원 입금통장 사본 첨부), 공소외 1 회사 농협통장 사본, 수사보고(공소외 32 휴대전화 통신허가서, 통화내역 등 첨부), 공소외 32 휴대전화 발신통화내역, 수사보고(선거비용 보전 및 회계보고 관련 일정 확인), 제19대 국회의원선거 주요회계사무 일정표, 선거비용 보전 청구서, 선거비용 추가보전 청구서, 수사보고(공소외 2 후보 ○○, △△, ◇◇ 선거사무원 명단 첨부), 공소외 2 후보자(○○, △△, ◇◇) 선거사무원 명단, 수사보고(공소외 55 선거사무원 등록 확인), 공소외 55 선거사무원 선임 명단, 수사보고(피고인 1, 3, 공소외 16에 대한 선거사무장 및 회계책임자 신고서 첨부), 피고인 1, 3, 공소외 16에 대한 회계책임자 및 선거사무장 선임신고서, 선거비용 보전청구서, 정치자금 수입, 지출부, 공소외 2 ○○선거사무소 압수물 편철 수사보고서, ‘비용’ 문건, ‘향후지급내역’ 문건, ‘정치자금(통장)’ 문건, ‘자원봉사자 관련’ 문건, ‘선거사무원’ 문건, ‘○○ 명세’ 문건, 수사보고(예비후보자 홍보물 발송 우편요금 현금 납부 확인), 우편요금 납부 내역 송부 요청서, 각 우편요금 납부 내역 송부서, 수사보고(피고인 1 명의 이메일 내용 첨부), 공소외 60 변호사가 피고인 1에게 보낸 이메일, 피고인 1이 공소외 60 변호사에게 보낸 이메일 본문, 수사보고(연설대담차량 표지 교부 신청서 첨부), ○○, △△, ◇◇ 표지 교부 신청서, 수사보고(□□□□□□ 연설대담차량 차적 조회서 첨부), 수사보고[○○, △△, ◇◇ 선거사무소 및 선거연락소 설치, 신고일, 각 선거사무장(선거연락소장) 및 회계책임자 신고, 변경 신고일 확인], 수사보고(다과비 정정 보고), 공소외 29 교체 신고서, 각 계약서, 각 견적서, 회계보고상 2차 계약서, 회계보고상 3차 계약서, 임대차계약서, 각 거래명세서, 계약서(수정분), 금전출납부(검찰 압수물), 예비후보자 홍보물 발송 신고서, 금융정보조회에 대한 회신 및 통보비용 청구(공소외 56 계좌 거래 내역), 각 선거사무관계자 명단, 조사경위서, 선거사무원(댄스팀) 통화 내역 녹취록, 회계보고서 보정제출(○○ 선관위 제출), 각 정치자금 수입, 지출 보고서, 각 정치자금 수입, 지출부, 재산명세서, 선거비용 지출내역 집계표, 정치자금 수입, 지출용 예금통장 사본, 영수증 등 증빙서류 사본(후보자 자산 - 선거비용), 영수증 등 증빙서류 첨부 및 정리, 소명자료, 사실확인서, 영수증 등 증빙서류 사본(후원회 기부금 - 선거비용), 각 사실확인서, 경위서, 영수증 등 증빙서류 사본(보조금 - 선거비용), 선거사무원 수당, 실비 추가 지급 소명서, 정치자금 수입, 지출보고서(△△ 선관위 제출), 공소외 2 명의 농협 계좌(계좌번호 생략), 정치자금 수입, 지출부, 선거사무관계자 수당, 실비 지급 명세서, 각 영수증 등 증빙서류 일체(계약서 등), 각 수사보고(○○군 선관위 고발장 사본 및 도선관위 보고서 사본 첨부, 경남도 선관위 공소외 55 진술조서 사본 첨부, 피고인 5 선거사무원 신고 및 해임서 첨부, 계좌추적용 압수수색영장 집행결과 1차 보고), 녹취록 작성 보고, 각 수사보고(피고인 5 기지국 위치와 공소외 2 ○○ 선거사무소 간 거리, ○○ 선거사무관계자 수당, 실비 지급 명세서 사본 첨부, 피고인 5, 공소외 3 통신허가서 집행결과 보고, 선거사무원 식비 관련 압수물 사본 편철, △△군 선거사무원 명단 및 수당지급명세서 편철), 조사경위서, 댄스팀 공소외 22, 61 통화내역 녹취록, 선거사무원 선임신고서, 각 수사보고(선서사무원 등록 기간 및 회계보고 여부 확인, 참고인 공소외 62 전화진술 청취), 공소외 2 ○○선거사무소 선거사무원 명단, 각 수사보고(◇◇ 선거연락소 정치자금 수입, 지출보고서 첨부, 공소외 2 후보자 보전 비용 청구서 사본 첨부), 증거자료 사본 편철 보고, ◇◇◇◇ 우체국 우편수입, 공소외 2 정치자금 농협 계좌, ◁◁◁ 간이영수증, 세금계산서, ▷▷▷▷▷ 공소외 45 진술서, 간이영수증, 공소외 45의 처 공소외 46 통장내역, 우편대금 확인보고

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

A. Defendant 1: Articles 255(2)5, 93(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act (the distribution of documents by unlawful means, the selection of fines), 257(1)1, and 115 of the Public Official Election Act (the violation of the prohibition of contribution acts, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of legal allowances and outdoor money for election clerks, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 258(1)1, and 122 of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of imprisonment), Articles 49(2)6 and 39 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the receipt of election expenses, false entry of documents, the selection of documents, the selection of documents, and the provision of money and valuables to Defendants 1 and 30 of the Public Official Election Act)

(b) Defendant 2: Articles 47(1)9, 36(2) of the Political Funds Act (the point of receiving a report on political funds, selecting fines), Articles 46 subparag. 5, 40(4) (the point of failing to submit receipts and other evidential documents, selecting fines), Articles 47(1)2, 17(1) (the point of not issuing receipts of political funds within the deadline, and selecting fines) of the Political Funds Act

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 49(1), 40(1) and (2) of the Political Funds Act (the false entry of a person in charge of accounting, the omission of an accounting report, the selection of a fine), Article 49(2)6, the main sentence of Article 39 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the receipt of election expenses, the false entry of a document evidencing the disbursement, the selection of fines

(d) Defendant 4: Article 230(1)4, Article 135(3), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

(e) Defendant 5: Articles 230(1)6 and 230(1)4, and 135(3) (Selection of Fines) of the Public Official Election Act

1. Separate sentence for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: Articles 18(3) and 18(1)3, 263, and 265 of the Public Official Election Act (each illegal means is divided into a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act and the rest of the crimes indicated in the judgment). Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that an election campaign manager or accountant in charge shall be sentenced to a separate sentence when he/she is sentenced to imprisonment or a fine exceeding three million won due to concurrent crimes with a crime under Articles 263 and 265 of the Public Official Election Act and other crimes under Articles 263 and 265 of the Public Official Election Act. However, the appointment of an election campaign manager or accountant in charge, and the act at the time of reporting, does not require the separate sentence only for crimes under Articles 263 and 265 of the Public Official Election Act, and thus, Defendant 1 shall separate and sentence each other crimes under Articles 263 and 265 of the Public Official Election Act.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crimes of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the distribution of documents by unlawful means shall be aggravated by the punishment prescribed for the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the distribution of a 9,000 head of a related law with the heavier criminal situation, and the punishment for the remaining crimes shall be aggravated by the punishment prescribed for the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the excessive disbursement of election expenses with the largest criminal nature)

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in Article 2-b of the Judgment with the most severe punishment)

(c) Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in paragraph (3) of the same Article on the violation of the Political Funds Act)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 5: proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Whether the crime described in Paragraph 1-A(2) of the holding is established

A. The defendant 1 and his defense counsel's arguments

1) The facts constituting the crime in this part are the facts constituting the crime as set forth in Article 1-A(1) of the holding.

2) The Defendant was only a fact that he produced tobacco 9,00 copies, but did not actually send them.

B. Determination

1) 먼저 이 부분 판시 범죄사실이 판시 제1의 가 1)항 기재 범죄사실과 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 이 부분 판시 범죄사실은 피고인이 2012. 1. 2.경 ‘▷▷▷▷▷’ 인쇄소에 의뢰하여 연하장 9,000장을 제작하여 2012. 2. 10.경 선거구민 9,000여 명에게 위 연하장을 발송하였다는 것이고, 판시 제1의 가 1)항 기재 범죄사실은 피고인이 2011. 12. 27.경 ‘◁◁◁’ 인쇄소에 의뢰하여 연하장 1,000장을 제작하여 2012. 1. 3.경 선거구민 1,000여 명에게 위 연하장을 발송하였다는 것으로서, 각 범죄의 연하장 발송시기, 연하장 제작을 의뢰한 업체, 발송한 연하장의 수 등이 달라 각 범죄가 단일 범의의 발현에 기인하는 일련의 행위라고 보기 어려워 포괄일죄의 관계에 있지 아니하므로, 피고인과 변호인의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

2) 다음으로 피고인이 연하장 9,000장을 실제로 발송하였는지에 관하여 보건대, 위에서 거시한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인은 제1회 검찰 조사 당시 아르바이트생을 고용하여 ▷▷▷▷▷에서 제작한 연하장 9,000장의 우표와 수신자 레벨지를 연하장 봉투에 붙여 공소외 33 등을 통하여 우체통에 넣는 방법으로 이를 발송하였다고 진술한 점, 위 연하장을 제작한 공소외 45는 검찰에서 피고인이 혼자 ▷▷▷▷▷로 찾아와 연하장 9,000장을 주문하였다는 취지로 진술한 점, 공소외 33은 제2회 검찰 조사에서 연하장 9,000장의 발송과 관련하여 피고인이 자신에게 박스 3개분의 연하장을 발송해 달라는 부탁을 하여 이를 우체통에 넣어 발송하였고, 위 연하장 제작자에게 3,240,000원 상당의 연하장 제작 대금을 지급하였다고 진술하고 있는 점, 피고인은 제2회 검찰 조사에서 연하장 9,000장을 주문, 제작만 하였을 뿐 그 발송은 피고인 2와 공소외 33이 하고 자신은 관여하지 않았다고 제1회 검찰 진술을 번복하였으나, 피고인 2는 검찰에서 자신이 위 연하장 발송에 관여하지 않았다고 진술하여 피고인의 위 검찰 진술과 어긋나는 점, 피고인은 이 법정에서 위 연하장을 발송하지 않았고 선거사무소 건물주가 거의 매일 청소를 하는 과정에서 폐지수집상에게 위 연하장을 주어 폐기된 것으로 알고 있다는 취지로 진술하나, 피고인이 3,240,000원을 들여 위 연하장의 제작에 주도적으로 관여하고도 그 발송에는 관여하지 않았거나 이를 폐기하였다고 볼 수는 없어 피고인의 위 진술을 그대로 믿을 수 없는 점, 피고인 2는 검찰에서 후원회 사무실에 큰 박스가 많이 있기에 피고인에게 무엇인지 물어보니 피고인이 연하장을 제작한 것이라고 하여 이를 폐기하라고 말하고 그 후 피고인이 이를 어떻게 처리했는지 모르겠다는 취지로 진술하였다가 이 법정에서 피고인에게 연하장을 너무 많이 제작한 것을 질책한 후 나중에 사무실에 그 박스가 없어져 연하장이 폐기된 것으로 알고 있다고 진술하고, 공소외 63 작성 인증서(공소외 63의 확인서, 반증 제22호증)의 기재에 의하면, 공소외 63이 2012. 1. 중순 이후 선거사무소 관계자로부터 연락을 받고 박스, 포장 뭉치 등을 수거해 갔다는 것이나, 피고인 2의 법정 진술에 의하더라도 연하장 9,000장이 폐기된 것을 직접 본 적은 없다는 취지이고 공소외 63이 수거해 간 것이 피고인이 제작한 연하장 9,000장이라고 보기도 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 연하장 9,000장을 발송한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 점을 다투는 피고인과 그 변호인의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

2. Whether the offense described in Paragraph 1-b of the holding constitutes an offense;

A. Defendant 1 and the gist of his defense counsel's assertion

Although the Defendant delivered KRW 1,00,000 to Defendant 2, the Defendant merely delivered KRW 1,000,000 to Defendant 2 on behalf of Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association, and such delivery does not constitute a contribution act.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed above, the defendant was found to have delivered the above money to Defendant 2 as expenses for election campaign, not for supporting the defendant. Since the above act of the defendant constitutes a contribution act, the defendant and his defense counsel are not accepted.

1) On May 14, 2012, the Defendant led Defendant 2 to an election campaign at the time of investigation by the prosecution, and led Defendant 2 to an election campaign, and led Defendant 1,000,000 won to that effect, confession was made on the facts constituting the crime in this part.

2) 피고인은 위 검찰 조사 당시 피고인 작성의 ‘후원금 내역서(2012년 형제3903, 5953호 증거기록의 증거목록 순번 72)’에 관하여 선거비용으로 사용할 후원금을 지급 받은 후 그 접수 및 지출내역을 기재해 놓은 것이라고 진술하고 있고, 위 내역서 제5행에 ’○ 개소식 : 36명 29,700,000원 ⇒ 피고인 2‘라고 기재된 것은 후원금 중 피고인 2에게 교부한 부분이라는 의미이며, 제6, 7행에 ’○ 이후 : 24명 13,050,000원‘, ’공소외 64 3,800,000‘, ’16,850,000‘이라고 기재된 것은 24명으로부터 개별적으로 지급 받은 후원금 액수와 선거비용으로 사용하기 위해 공소외 64로부터 빌린 돈 3,800,000원의 합계가 16,850,000원이라는 의미이고, 그 이하 ’○ 지출‘, ’합계 16,250,000‘, ’잔액 600,000‘이라고 기재되어 있는 것은 위 16,850,000원 중 16,250,000원을 지출하고 그 잔액이 600,000원이 남았다는 의미이며, 위 후원금 내역서의 지출내역 중 ’피고인 2 1,000,000‘이라고 기재된 것은 피고인 2가 선거운동을 도와주었으므로 수고비 명목으로 1,000,000원을 주었다는 의미이고, 위 후원금 내역서는 제19대 국회의원 선거일인 2012. 4. 11.로부터 2~3일 안에 작성되었다는 취지로 진술하였다.

3) On May 15, 2012, the following day after the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant reversed the above statement, and stated that: (a) KRW 500,00 advertising fees for ○○ Newspapers; (b) KRW 2300,000; (c) KRW 150,000; and (d) KRW 2,00,00,000, respectively, in △△△ Office; and (c) Defendant 2 did not think that the said money was actually actually paid; and (d) the Defendant did not actually paid KRW 1,00,00,000; (c) the Defendant stated that the said money was actually paid; and (d) it was erroneous in the prosecutor’s investigation as seen above; and (e) the Defendant did not have known that part of the expenditure was not actually paid after the cash was concealed at one’s own house.

4) On May 16, 2012, the Defendant sent KRW 4,000,000 to the prosecution around April 13, 2012 through Defendant 2. Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 2, as a person in charge of accounting of the supporters’ association, offered 1,00,000 won without asking his/her purpose of use after asking his/her money as a person in charge of accounting of the supporters’ association, and that Defendant 2 reversed Defendant 2’s statement on the portion where he/she paid KRW 1,00,000 to Defendant 2.

5) Meanwhile, at the prosecution, Defendant 2 received support money of KRW 29,70,000 and KRW 4,700,000 as stated in the “detailed statement of support money” above, including KRW 1,00,000 from the Defendant, and KRW 34,70,000 (= KRW 1,000,000 + KRW 4,000,000 + KRW 29,700,000 + KRW 29,700,000) from the Defendant in cash, and recently, stated that Defendant 2 received additional support money of KRW 7,00,000 from the Defendant (the money claimed by the Defendant that he kept in his own house). In addition, Defendant 2 stated in the prosecution that “I will use the said KRW 1,000,000 for farming and fishing village” with the Defendant’s said KRW 1,00,000.

6) The account (Account Number 2 omitted) of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association was deposited in KRW 41,70,000 for support payments from May 15, 2012 to May 18, 2012, which reversed the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement. This is consistent with the sum of KRW 34,700,000 for support payments that the Defendant paid to Defendant 2 and the sum of KRW 7,00,000 received by Defendant 2 from the Defendant.

7) 살피건대, 위에서 살펴본 피고인과 피고인 2의 진술 등에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인이 2012. 5. 14. 위 ‘후원금 내역서’에 기재된 사항에 대하여 최초로 검찰에서 조사받으면서 한 진술은 위 ‘후원금 내역서’에 기재된 문언의 내용과 정확히 부합하고, 피고인은 그 당시 피고인 2가 선거운동을 도와주느라 수고하여 그에게 1,000,000원을 주었다는 취지로 진술한 점, 피고인은 그 후 피고인 2가 선거운동으로 고생한다고 생각하여 1,000,000원을 주려고 생각만 하였지 실제로 이를 지출하지 않았다고 진술을 번복하였다가 피고인 2에게 위 1,000,000원을 후원금으로 지급하였다며 그 진술을 다시 번복한 점, 피고인이 피고인 2에게 1,000,000원을 후원금으로 지급하였다면 ‘후원금 내역서’에 ’○ 개소식 : 36명 29,700,000원 ⇒ 피고인 2‘라고 피고인 2에게 후원금 29,700,000원을 지급한 내역을 기재하면서 이와 별도로 지출내역에 ’피고인 2 1,000,000‘이라고 기재하지는 않았을 것인 점, 또한, 위 ’후원금 내역서‘ 등에 의하면, 개소식 이후 후원금으로 13,050,000원이 들어온 사실이 인정되는데, 위 후원금 13,050,000원 전액을 후원회 회계책임자인 피고인 2에게 지급하지 않고 그 중 유독 1,000,000원만을 후원금으로 지급하였다는 피고인의 주장은 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점, 피고인의 주장에 의하더라도 피고인은 현금으로 개별접수한 후원금 중 29,700,000원을 피고인 2에게 먼저 교부하고, 나머지 후원금은 별도로 보관하다가 그 중 일부를 지출하였다는 것인바, 결국 피고인은 선거와 관련된 비용으로 사용하기 위하여 후원금 중 일부를 별도로 보관한 것으로 보임에도 위 1,000,000원의 용도를 명확히 밝히지 못하고 있는 점(피고인이 개소식 이후 들어온 후원금을 후원회 회계책임자인 피고인 2에게 교부하지 않고 별도로 보관하고 있다가 그 중 일부를 피고인 2에게 교부하여 사용하려고 하였다면, 이는 선거 관련 비용으로 사용하기 위한 것이라고 보아야 하는데, 피고인은 △△, ◇◇ 선거연락소에 전달할 4,000,000원과 달리 위 1,000,000원을 후원금이라고만 주장할 뿐 그 구체적인 용처를 밝히지는 못하고 있다), 피고인이 후원회 회계책임자인 피고인 2에게 1,000,000원을 후원금 명목으로 교부하면서 “수고합니다. 쓰십시오”라는 취지의 말을 하기는 어려워 보이는 점, 피고인이 검찰 진술을 번복한 2012. 5. 15.부터 2012. 5. 18.까지 공소외 2의 후원회 계좌로 후원금 41,700,000원이 입금되었는데 이는 피고인이 피고인 2에게 지급하였다는 위 후원금 합계 34,700,000원과 최근에 피고인 2가 피고인으로부터 받은 위 7,000,000원의 합계액과 일치하는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인의 2012. 5. 14.자 검찰 진술은 신빙성이 있고 이에 어긋나는 피고인의 번복 진술 및 피고인 2의 진술은 이를 그대로 믿을 수 없다.

3. Whether a crime listed in paragraph (3) of the judgment is established;

A. Summary of the defendant 1 and his defense counsel's assertion

1) The Defendant did not deliver KRW 4,000,000 to Nonindicted 6 of the election campaign workers in return for a campaign speech for support of Nonindicted 2.

2) The Defendant did not pay Nonindicted 6 additional meal expenses of KRW 78,00,00, in addition to the statutory allowances and actual expenses for election campaign workers, via Nonindicted 11.

B. Determination

1) Whether a speech is provided at KRW 4,000,000 on the pretext of the cost of speech

A) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant: (a) stated 0 Nonindicted 6 Nonindicted 1’s statement on May 14, 201 that it was difficult for Nonindicted 6 to use Nonindicted 6 to make an investigation into Nonindicted 6’s cash account; (b) stated 0,00,000 won for Nonindicted 6’s campaign speech; and (c) stated the Defendant’s statement that it was difficult for Nonindicted 6 to use Nonindicted 0 to use Nonindicted 6’s cash account book; (d) stated 0 Nonindicted 6’s statement that it was difficult for the Defendant to use Nonindicted 6 to use Nonindicted 0 to use Nonindicted 6’s cash account book; and (e) stated 0,000 won that it was difficult for the Defendant to use Nonindicted 6 to use Nonindicted 6’s cash account book; and (e) stated 00,000 won that it was difficult for the Defendant to use Nonindicted 6 to use Nonindicted 6 to use Nonindicted 40, as indicated in the above statement.

B) Accordingly, the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion disputing this issue are not accepted. 2) Whether the Defendant offered 78,000 won on a meal expense

A) According to the following circumstances, Nonindicted Party 6 and Nonindicted Party 1’s statement that Nonindicted Party 6 had been carried out by Nonindicted Party 1 for an election campaign worker at the prosecution office for 13 days, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 11 stated that it was 78,00 won for each of the above 4-day election campaign workers at the prosecution office’s expense for 10 days. Nonindicted Party 6 and Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the above 4-day election campaign worker was carried out for 6-day election campaign workers at the prosecution office’s expense for 10 days. Nonindicted Party 6 and Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the above 8-day election campaign worker was carried out for 6-day election campaign workers at the court’s expense for 40 days, Nonindicted Party 6 and Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the above 6-day election campaign worker was not carried out for 0 days, and that the Defendant stated that it was carried out for 0-day election campaign workers at the court’s expense for 10 days, 30-day election campaign workers.

B) Accordingly, the Defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue are not accepted.

4. Whether the offense described in paragraph (d) of the judgment is established;

A. Whether this part of the facts charged against Defendant 1 is specified

1) Summary of Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s assertion

The offense provided for in Article 258 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act constitutes a true status crime or self-denunciation crime demanding that the offender be a political party, candidate, election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, accountant in charge, or assistant in accounting. The Defendant is only reported as the election campaign manager or accountant in charge of Nonindicted 2’s election campaign office from December 13, 201 to April 5, 2012. The election campaign manager from April 6, 2012 to Nonindicted 16, and the accountant in charge, even though the Defendant was Defendant 3, the charge entered in the list of the annexed sheet against the Defendant was made by the Defendant from December 27, 201 to May 10, 2012, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the charges were completely distinguishable from the election expenses paid by the Defendant when the Defendant was an election campaign manager or accountant in charge, and thus, the indictment cannot be dismissed in violation of Article 27(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) Determination

A) From December 13, 2011 to April 5, 2012, the Defendant reported as the election campaign manager and accountant in charge for the election campaign office of 19th and 00, △△△△△, and Nonindicted 2, the election campaign liaison office of △△ local constituency, from December 27, 2011 to May 10, 201, the gist of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (i) the Defendant spent more than KRW 236,00,000, KRW 1,200, KRW 180,000, KRW 30, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 300, KRW 286, KRW 205, KRW 2086, KRW 3086, KRW 205, KRW 2086, KRW 3085, KRW 2086, KRW 2085, KRW 8685,085,00, KRW 2865,07, etc.

In addition, Article 119(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the term "expenses" refers to the provision, delivery, or promise of election expenses. If the defendant provided, delivered, or promised the election expenses between December 27, 201 and April 5, 201, which was in the status of an election campaign manager and accountant in charge, the expenses are included in the election expenses paid by the defendant in the above status, and if the defendant provided, delivered, or promised the election expenses between April 6, 2012 and May 10, 2012, the expenses are determined as to whether the defendant exceeded the restricted amount of election expenses without including the election expenses paid by the election campaign manager and accountant in charge, and in light of the degree of the above facts charged, it cannot be deemed that the indictment procedure is invalid due to the violation of the provisions of law.

B) Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel are not accepted.

(b) Whether election expenses are overpaid;

Article 258 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act provides that an offender is a political party, candidate, election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, accountant in charge, or assistant in accounting, and Article 119 (3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that the term "expenses" means the provision, delivery, or promise of election expenses.

Therefore, in order to establish the above crime, as seen earlier, the Defendant, as an election campaign manager and accountant in charge, took overall charge of election expenses from December 13, 2011 to April 5, 2012. From April 6, 2012 to April 16, 2012, even if the election campaign manager was to be Nonindicted 16, and even if the accountant in charge actually involved in the election expenses even after the change from April 6, 2012 to Defendant 3, in fact, he/she provided, delivered or promised election expenses exceeding 1/20 of the restricted amount of election expenses until April 5, 2012, when the Defendant is in the status of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge, or the Defendant disbursed, in collusion with the status of the above crime, and the above crime should be established against his/her status.

However, even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to find that the defendant conspired with the persons committing the above crime to disburse election expenses in excess of the above amount and his identity also constitute the above crime, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the establishment of the above crime should be determined by examining whether the defendant provided, delivered, or promised to deliver election expenses exceeding 1/20 of the restricted amount of election expenses until April 5, 2012, when the election campaign manager and accountant in charge are in the status of election campaign manager and accountant in charge.

1) Whether election expenses of KRW 1,893,333 are included in Nos. 1,893, and 1,8933 of the table of the facts charged in the separate sheet against the Defendant

A) Summary of the assertion

Where a defendant and his defense counsel lend a vehicle which has undergone various works (referring to the work of attaching a candidate's photograph, publicity phrase, etc. to a vehicle structure, etc., in this context, referring to the work of attaching a candidate's photograph, publicity phrase, etc.) to make a speech or interview during the election campaign period, only the rent during the election campaign period is included in the election expenses, and no rent after the election campaign period is paid. Thus, the defendant requested a non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-indicted 1 corporation") to conduct the above work, and even if the defendant leased a milk vehicle from the above company from March 28, 2012 to April 11, 2012, it cannot be viewed as the remainder of the rent for the election expenses except for the rent for the remainder of the election expenses from March 29, 2012 to October 10, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "non-indicted 31 corporation") and the rent after the election campaign period.

B) Determination

(1) Major provisions on election expenses under the Public Official Election Act

Article 58 (Definitions, etc.)

(1) For the purpose of this Act, the term "election campaign" means an act to be elected or to be or not to be elected: Provided, That any of the following acts shall not be deemed an election campaign:

2. An act of preparing candidacy and election campaign;

Article 119 (Definition of Election Expenses, etc.)

(1) For the purpose of this Act, the term "election expenses" means money, goods, debts, and all other property values required for the election campaign in the relevant election, and any of the following expenses that are borne by the relevant candidate (including a person who intends to be a candidate, and, in the presidential election, including a party-recommended candidate, in the presidential election, in the election of proportional representative local councils, and in the election of proportional representative local councils,

1. Expenses disbursed by a candidate for an election campaign in violation of this Act, and expenses disbursed in violation of the regulations on restriction on contributions;

2. Expenses paid by a political party, the head of a political party election campaign office, the spouse and lineal ascendants or descendants of a candidate, the election campaign manager, the head of an election campaign liaison office, or a person in charge of accounting for an election campaign (including illegal election campaigns; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph)

3. Expenses paid by an election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, or a person appointed as a person in charge of accounting for the election campaign of the relevant candidate before he/she is appointed or reported, and

4. Expenses disbursed by any person, even if he does not fall under subparagraphs 2 and 3, in collusion with a candidate or persons prescribed under subparagraph 2 or 3, for an election campaign of the relevant candidate, and expenses disbursed, in violation of provisions concerning the restriction on contributions.

Article 120 (Expenses not Recognized as Election Expenses)

None of the following expenses shall be deemed election expenses provided for in this Act:

1. Expenses incurred in preparing an election campaign, such as those needed for obtaining recommendations of the electors;

8. Expenses incurred in conducting any act that is not deemed a contribution act pursuant to Article 112 (2): Provided, That expenses incurred in conducting any act falling under subparagraph 1 (e) (excluding cases where a provision is made to a person who visits the office of a political party) and subparagraph 2 (g) (excluding cases where a member of the National Assembly who is not a candidate or a preliminary candidate provides such act) of

9. Expenses incurred in arranging remaining business in which the disbursement officer has occurred after the election day;

(2) Whether the above KRW 1,893,33 constitutes election expenses

(A) Although Article 257(1)1 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice provides that an act exceeding the limit of election expenses shall be punished, the scope of election expenses shall not be separately provided. Thus, Article 119(1) of the same Act is applied, which is the definition of election expenses under the same Act. Therefore, the expenses paid for an election campaign provided for in Article 119(1) of the same Act shall be included in the election expenses provided for in Article 257(1)1 of the same Act. An election campaign provided for in Article 58(1) of the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractice Act refers to an active and planned act that is objectively recognized by the intention of promoting the election or the defeat of election, as all acts necessary or favorable for a specific candidate's election or the winning of election, and it is clearly distinguishable from an act of preparation for an election campaign or ordinary political party activities for a future election, but in determining which act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined not only as the name of such act, but also as the time and method of the candidate's election.

(나) 살피건대, 위에서 거시한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 공소외 1 회사가 2012. 3.경 당시 공소외 2 선거사무소의 회계책임자인 피고인에게 1t 차량 2대와 2.5t 차량 1대에 유세장비 등을 설치하여 이를 40,000,000원(부가가치세 포함, 2.5t 1대 15,000,000원, 1t 2대 15,200,000원, 영상설비 1개 9,800,000원)에 공급하는 내용의 견적서(증거기록 2012년 형제6053, 10537, 10538호의 증거목록 순번 152-19)에는 ‘선거기간 13일 기준‘이라는 기재가 있을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인 측은 위 회사가 교부한 견적서에 대하여 별다른 이의를 제기하지 않아 당초 그 비용은 선거운동기간인 13일을 기준으로 산정된 것으로 보이는 점, 공소외 1 회사의 실질적 운영자인 공소외 17은 검찰에서 위와 같은 내용의 계약을 체결한 후 ◐◐◐◐에게 위 차량의 골조작업을 하도급하고, ▤▤▤▤에 래핑 작업을 하도급해 위 차량의 유세장비 등의 설치 등 작업을 하였다고 진술하고 있는 점, 그 후 선거운동 개시 당일인 2012. 3. 29. 위 2.5t 차량의 발전기가 고장 나자 공소외 1 회사는 선거운동기간 피고인과 사이에, 위 2.5t 차량 1대를 제외한 1t 차량 2대만을 공급하되 그 비용은 당초 1t 차량 2대 비용으로 약정한 15,200,000원에서 1,000,000원을 감액한 14,200,000원으로 하고, 기간은 2012. 3. 28.부터 2012. 4. 11.까지로 하는 내용의 계약서(위 증거목록 순번 152-20, 152-21)를 다시 작성한 점, 공소외 17은 검찰 조사에서 위 차량을 선거운동 개시일 전날 납품하기로 하였으나 그 제작이 늦어져 선거운동기간 개시일인 2012. 3. 29. 위 차량을 납품하고 선거일인 2012. 4. 11. 이를 돌려받아 그 유세 장비 등의 철거작업을 하였다고 진술하고 있는바, 선거운동기간 전일이나 선거일에는 위 차량 유세 장비 등의 설치, 철거 등의 작업이 이루어져 그 유세 장비 등의 실제 임대기간은 당초 작성된 견적서의 기재와 같이 선거운동기간인 13일로 판단되고 앞서 본 그 계약의 변경 경위 등을 고려하면 그 비용도 선거운동기간인 13일을 기준으로 산정되었다고 판단되는 점, 설령 그 임대기간을 변경된 15일로 본다고 하더라도 위와 같은 유세 장비 등의 설치, 철거 등의 작업은 위 차량을 이용해 선거운동을 하기 위하여 필수적으로 이루어져야 하고, 선거운동을 위한 차량에 유세 장비 등을 설치하는 등의 행위는 특정후보자의 당선 등을 도모하는 목적의지가 뚜렷하여 이를 단순히 선거운동을 위한 준비행위에 해당된다고 볼 수 없는 점, 그 유세 장비 등을 이용하여 선거운동이 이루어진 경우 그 장비의 설치, 임대, 철거 등에 소요된 비용 전액은 선거운동에 대한 포괄적인 대가로서의 성격을 가지는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 임차료 1,893,333원도 피고인이 선거사무장과 회계책임자 신분에서 선거운동을 위하여 그 교부를 약속한 선거비용으로 봄이 타당하다.

(C) Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

2) Whether the election expenses No. 2 No. 10,450,000 are included in the table No. 2

A) Summary of the assertion

피고인과 그 변호인은, 피고인이 ◈◈◈◈◈◈의 운영자인 공소외 66에게 1t 차량 2대, 2.5t 차량 1대의 래핑 작업을 도급한 사실이 없을 뿐만 아니라, 설령 공소외 66이 래핑 작업을 도급받았다고 하더라도, 그 작업내용이 조잡하여 일의 완성 전에 수급인의 채무불이행 등으로 그 도급계약이 해제되었고, 공소외 66이 산정한 비용은 특별한 근거 없이 일방적으로 산정된 과다한 것이므로, 이를 피고인이 그 지급을 약속한 선거비용에 포함할 수 없다고 주장한다.

B) Determination

(1) The Defendant, since the investigative agency, did not request Nonindicted 66 to conduct doping on three vehicles for oil consumption, stated to the effect that Nonindicted 66 was fit for having discovered himself and claimed for expenses, and denied this part of the facts charged.

(2) As shown in this part of the facts charged, Nonindicted 66’s statement in this court and in the investigative agency, Nonindicted 66’s statement in the tax invoice (as attached to No. 152-15 of the evidence list) prepared by Nonindicted 66, and Nonindicted 57’s election commission in the ○○○ Military Election Commission that carried out doping operations.

(3) 공소외 66은 ○○군 선거관리위원회에서 ◐◐◐◐(♡♡♡♡)이 위 차량 3대의 골조작업을 한 후 자신이 래핑 작업을 하여 공정의 80% 정도가 진행될 무렵 공소외 2 측 선거사무소 관계자들이 ‘디자인이 맞지 않다’며 작업 중단을 요구하여 그 작업을 중단하였고, 피고인이 선거 후 자신에게 위 작업에 대한 비용을 청구하라고 하여 세금계산서를 피고인 측에 제출하였는데 피고인으로부터 아무런 대답이 없었다고 진술하다가, 제1회 검찰 조사에서는 피고인의 의뢰로 래핑 작업을 하였고 피고인이 먼저 자신에게 래핑 작업 비용을 청구하라고 하였는지는 기억이 나지 않으며 자신이 답답해서 먼저 비용청구서를 제출한 것 같다는 취지로 진술하여 선거관리위원회에서의 진술을 일부 번복하였다. 그 후 공소외 66은 제2회 검찰 조사에서 자신이 일부 진행한 래핑작업에 대하여 피고인이 아무런 말이 없었으나 선거가 끝나고 난 뒤 공소외 2 후보가 낙선하였으면 모르겠는데 당선되어 그 작업에 대한 비용을 보전해 줄 것이라 기대하였고, 자신이 작업한 비용이 10,450,000원 정도가 될 것으로 생각하여 그 금액의 세금계산서를 피고인 측에 제출하였다는 취지로 진술하였고, 이 법정에서는 제2회 검찰 조사 당시와 같은 취지로 진술하면서 래핑 작업 전, 후에 피고인과 그 작업비용에 대한 구체적인 논의를 한 사실이 전혀 없으며 일방적으로 그 비용을 10,450,000원으로 산정하였다는 취지로 진술하였다.

(4) 이에 대하여 래핑 작업을 한 ▤▤▤▤ 운영자 공소외 57은 ○○군 선거관리위원회에서 공소외 1 회사로부터 차량 2대의 래핑 작업을 의뢰받았는데, 디자인, 편집, 실사출력물 등을 모두 지원받아 부착만 해주었기 때문에 대금을 3,000,000원만 받았다는 취지로 진술하고 있고, 공소외 1 회사의 운영자인 공소외 17은 검찰에서 ◈◈◈◈◈◈에게 래핑 작업을 하도급한 사실이 없다는 취지로 진술하고 있다.

(5) In light of the following circumstances: (a) Nonindicted 66’s statement at the ○○○ Military Election Commission, after the election of a National Assembly member, that the Defendant called Nonindicted 66 to demand for the cost of doping work on three occasions; (b) Nonindicted 66’s statement was reversed in the prosecutor’s office and this court; and (c) Nonindicted 66’s statement was difficult to believe that it was against the Defendant’s statement to the effect that it was not the fact that Nonindicted 66 did not demand doping expenses; and (d) Nonindicted 66’s statement was contrary to the prosecutor’s office and this court’s office, as seen earlier, it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 60’s statement was made to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to unilaterally calculate the cost of doping work, and that Nonindicted 60’s statement made by the Defendant to the effect that it was difficult for the Defendant to acknowledge that it was the first 60’s statement made by the Defendant.

(6) Therefore, the above KRW 10,450,00 cannot be deemed to be included in the election expenses paid by the defendant.

3) Whether expenses for election expenses No. 3 are included in the table No. 3

A) Whether the rent for the lease of Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 5 was included in the election expenses of KRW 600,000 ( KRW 300,000 x 2)

(1) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the amount to be paid by the defendant in return for the lease of 1st vehicle on which oil supply equipment, etc. are attached by Nonindicted Company 1 includes all rent for each of the above vehicles itself, Nonindicted Company 1’s inclusion of rent of KRW 600,000 paid by Nonindicted Company 52 to the owner of each of the above vehicles, including rent of KRW 60,000 paid by Nonindicted Company 1 to the owner of the vehicle in double calculation of the election expenses.

(2) Determination

(A) The Defendant denied this part of the facts charged that: (a) since the investigative agency, the Defendant paid or promised to deliver the said rent for two vehicles to the owner of the said vehicle or the actual owner of the said vehicle; or (b) the said portion of the charges.

(B) As evidence that the Defendant appeared to correspond to the facts charged that he paid the rent of two vehicles pert, the Defendant stated the “○○, △△△△△△△, and △△△△ mark delivery application (Evidence No. 133 of the evidence list)” on which the Defendant applied for the use of the said two vehicles for rent, Nonindicted 67, the representative director of the owner of the 1t vehicle (vehicle No. 1 omitted), Nonindicted 68, the representative director of Nonindicted 4 Company, and his employees, Nonindicted 69, the actual owner of the 1t vehicle (vehicle No. 2 omitted), Nonindicted 52, who paid the said vehicle rent to the investigation agency, and Nonindicted 2’s investigative agency.

(C) Nonindicted 17, an operator of Nonindicted Company 1, made a statement to the effect that the provision of a vehicle itself, who was to attach oil equipment, etc. in the first investigation by the ○○ Military Election Commission and the 1st prosecutor’s office, was entrusted to Nonindicted 2 candidate, and Nonindicted 52, who carried out the 1st 2nd structural construction at the 2nd prosecutor’s office, was in coloring a floating vehicle on the 2st candidate’s side. Nonindicted 2, who was working at the 2nd prosecutor’s office, and who was aware of the fact that the 5th office did not receive a rent from the above vehicle, even if he was aware of the fact that the 6th office did not receive a rent from the above vehicle, and that it was included in the 6th prosecutor’s license of the said vehicle in the 1st 1st 2nd 2nd 7th st st 6th st son, and that it was included in the 6th 2nd 6th st st son’s own vehicle.

공소외 67은 검찰에서 피고인 2의 부탁으로 차량을 지원해 주면서 그 대가를 받기로 하지 않았으나, 위 차량을 돌려받으면서 공소외 52 측(♡♡♡♡, ◐◐◐◐)으로부터 자신의 직원을 통해서 기름값 명목으로 300,000원을 받았다고 진술하고 있고, 공소외 4 주식회사의 직원인 공소외 68은 ○○군 선거관리위원회에서 공소외 67이 공소외 2 측에 차량을 지원하라고 하였고 별도의 임대차 계약은 하지 않았으나 공소외 67이 500,000원 정도 받으면 되지 않겠느냐는 취지로 말한 적은 있다는 취지로 진술하였다. 1t 차량 (차량번호 2 생략)의 실제 보유자인 공소외 69는 공소외 52의 부탁으로 차량을 제공하면서 공소외 52에게 “얼마 줄건대?”라고 물어보자 공소외 52가 “알아서 안 주겠나”라고 말하며 구체적인 임차료는 정하지 않았고, 차량을 돌려받으면서 공소외 52로부터 300,000원을 받았다는 취지로 진술하고 있다.

(D) In light of the following circumstances, the first vehicle itself was manufactured and supplied by Nonindicted Company 1 from Nonindicted Company 2 on the part of Nonindicted Company 2, i.e., the first vehicle itself was directly colored and supplied by Nonindicted Company 2. Although it was not specifically determined between the said 1t vehicle provider and the above 1t vehicle provider, it appears that the provider of the said vehicle was scheduled to use the oil value as the price. The provider of the said vehicle received KRW 300,000 from Nonindicted Party 52, who was returned the vehicle and did not receive the 300,000,000 from Nonindicted Party 2, and it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 52 to find that Nonindicted Party 2 did not receive the above 30,000,000 won from the 30,000,000 won or more from the 2nd side of the said payment, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant directly made a statement to the said 2nd prosecutor and the said 5th prosecutor’s office’s charge.

(E) Therefore, the above KRW 600,000 cannot be deemed to be included in the election expenses paid by the defendant.

B) Whether the election expenses of KRW 1,350,000 are included in the rent for one motor vehicle for Nonindicted 3

(1) Summary of the assertion

The Defendant and his defense counsel included both the amount that the Defendant agreed to pay for rent of 2.5t vehicles and 1t vehicles from Nonindicted Company 1 in return for rent of 2.5t vehicles and 2 vehicles. However, on March 29, 2012 due to the failure of the power generation of the 2.5t vehicle, the Defendant agreed to exempt Nonindicted 3, the owner of the 2.5t vehicle, from expenses for the 2.5t vehicle, who was unable to receive rent from Nonindicted Company 1 or its subcontractor, and Defendant 4, the 2.5t vehicle owner of Nonindicted Company 2, was unable to receive rent from Nonindicted Company 1 or its subcontractor, and Defendant 3, the 1,350,00 (including rent of 10,150,000 won for the above vehicle) for 99 days, which was not used by Nonindicted 3 as required by Nonindicted 3, following Nonindicted 3, but should include rent of 100,000 won for the above vehicle.

(2) Determination

(A) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed above, Nonindicted 3: (a) determined the Defendant at the prosecution as KRW 150,000 per day; (b) delivered the vehicle to the Defendant for the manufacture of 20 days before commencing an election campaign; (c) on March 29, 2012, it was impossible for the Defendant to use the vehicle for an election campaign due to the breakdown of the vehicle on the election campaign, which was returned on April 1, 2012; and (d) on March 23, 2012, it is reasonable to view the Defendant to have received the aforementioned rent from Nonindicted 2, the Defendant’s own account under the agreement to directly supply the vehicle from Nonindicted 3, 350,00 (150,000 won x 9) for which the Defendant was responsible for the manufacture of the vehicle from March 23, 2012 to March 31, 2012.

(B) However, the above vehicle leased by the Defendant from Nonindicted 3 is used only for an actual election campaign, and is included in the election expenses paid only 150,000 won a day for the election campaign, and the remaining rent is difficult to be deemed to have been paid for the election campaign, and it cannot be deemed that it is included in the election expenses.

4) Whether the election expenses of KRW 4,658,824 No. 4 No. 4 of the table are included

A) Summary of the assertion

The Defendant and his defense counsel concluded a contract for the lease of 1st vehicle, which is a substitute vehicle of the above 2.5t vehicle, for 16 days from March 29, 2012 to April 13, 2012, with the Defendant, on March 29, 2012, and 19,800 won, from March 29, 2012 to April 13, 2012, the aforementioned 2.5t vehicle constitutes election expenses only for 3 days from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012, and the remainder of the election expenses for 2.5t vehicle and one substitute vehicle were leased for 2.5 hours from March 29, 2012 to 2.3 days from the end of 2.10 days from March 29, 2012 to the end of 2.10 days from the date of the above 2.3rd vehicle and the remainder of the election expenses for 10.2 days from March 25, 201201.

B) Determination

(1) On March 29, 201, Nonindicted Party 2: (a) Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 18 are deemed to have entered into an election campaign order of 10 to 20,000 on the 20th anniversary of the above time limit; (b) Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to receive one rent for rent from Nonindicted Party 32 on the same day; and (c) Nonindicted Party 2 were to receive one rent for rent from 10,80,00 on March 30, 201; and (d) Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were to enter the said order into an election campaign order of 20 to 10,000 on the 20th day of the above time limit for rent for rent of 10 to 30,00,000 on the 20th day of the above time limit for rent of 20,000 won on the 20th day of the above time limit for rent of 1 to 30,012.

(2) Accordingly, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion shall not be accepted.

5) Whether the election expenses No. 5 No. 910,000 are included in the table 5

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel did not have appointed the non-indicted 29, who is the election campaign worker, and the non-indicted 29 did not know that he was appointed as the election campaign worker, and there was no fact that he was involved in the expenditures of the statutory allowances. Thus, the above statutory allowances do not constitute election expenses spent by the defendant and the

B) Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed as follows. Nonindicted 29 is the election campaign worker at the election campaign office or the election campaign worker at the election campaign liaison office from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012; the Defendant was transferred legal allowances of 910,000 won to the election campaign worker at the election campaign office; the Defendant was reported as the election campaign manager at the election campaign office and the accountant in charge until April 5, 2012; the Defendant’s “expenses” written by the Defendant was indicated as 49,870,000 won in the document prepared by the election campaign manager at the election campaign office or the accountant in charge at the election campaign liaison office; according to the accounting report submitted by Nonindicted 2 to the election campaign manager at the election campaign office and the statutory election campaign worker at the election campaign manager at the election campaign office and the statutory election campaign worker at the election campaign manager at the election campaign office, even after the election campaign worker at the election campaign office and the accountant in charge at the election campaign liaison office’s election campaign worker at the election campaign office.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

6) Whether the election expenses No. 6 No. 160,000 are included in the table 6

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the meal costs of the defendant are individually disbursed by the defendant or defendant 2, and they do not bear such expenses at the election campaign office, and they cannot be included in election expenses. The expenses are calculated by calculating the food expenses for eight days from March 29, 2012 to April 5, 2012, which were subject to the election campaign manager or accounting responsibility, with the food expenses for eight days from March 29, 2012 to April 5, 2012, since the food expenses actually spent during the above period are not proven to the above amount, the above expenses cannot be included in election expenses.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association, made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that the amount indicated in the “income amount” column of the Defendant’s employee Nonindicted 55 (Evidence Nos. 152-37 of the evidence record) was paid to his personal money. However, the above money delivery and payment were not included in the revenue and expenditure details of the Defendant’s election campaign office’s operating expenses, but it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 paid the said money personally when the total amount of the money delivery and payment exceeds 7 million won. Defendant 2 paid the said money from this court to 70 million won, but it was thought that Defendant 2 would have settled the said money upon entering the election campaign office. However, if the court did not settle the occupancy price, it is reasonable to view that the above money delivery and payment were made to the Defendant’s accountant in charge of the said money payment and payment for the said 00-year election campaign, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not have any special reasons.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue are not accepted.

7) Whether the purchase cost of section 7 C No. 7 C includes election expenses of KRW 398,990

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel held that since the ○○ election campaign office was used as the office of the candidate supporters’ association for non-party 2, and that the ccam was provided to the persons working for the election campaign office, the total amount of the above cam cannot be deemed to be the purchase cost of Category C offered to the persons who visited the ○○ election campaign office. Furthermore, apart from the 398,90 won which was not reported as the purchase cost of Category C when the accounting report was made at the time of the accounting report, the 300,780 won for the purchase cost of Category C, which was separate from the above 398,90 won which was not reported as the purchase cost of Category C, was affixed to the election expenses by the defendant and his defense counsel, Non-indicted 2, who affixed the photograph of the drinking water, etc. kept in the ○○ election campaign office, did not report the purchase cost of Category C as election expenses. Since there was no evidentiary document, it was no additional purchase of Category C, etc. on April 30, 2012, 2012.

B) Determination

If the tea, which was kept in the election campaign office of ○○, was provided for election campaign, the expenses for providing teas are all included in the election expenses, regardless of whether the person who received the teas intended to visit the election campaign office or for the purpose of visiting the election campaign office. Since the teas provided by Nonindicted 2 to the person in the election campaign office after the completion of the candidate registration, it is inevitable to use it for the election campaign, it is included in the election expenses.

However, according to the above evidence, it is insufficient to recognize that the purchase cost of teas paid after April 6, 2012, which was replaced by Defendant 3, etc. by Defendant 6, etc. by the accountant in charge and the election campaign manager, reached KRW 141,990, and only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and submitted by the prosecutor that the Defendant was the person in charge of accounting and the election campaign manager, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that only KRW 257,00 (=398,990 - 141,990) is the election expenses paid by the Defendant.

한편, 다과류 구입비를 선거비용으로 신고하는데 쓰일 증빙자료가 없어 2012. 4. 30. 다과류 등을 추가로 구입한 후 그 영수증을 첨부해 다과류 구입비 300,780원을 선거비용으로 회계보고 하였으므로, 위 비용은 피고인 측이 선거비용으로 회계보고한 금액에서 공제되어야 한다는 피고인의 위 주장에 대하여 공소외 70이 이 법정에서 이에 부합하는 진술을 하고 있고, ▥▥▥ 운영자 공소외 71 작성의 확인서(반증 제19호증)에도 같은 취지의 기재가 있으나, 이는 피고인 측이 스스로 위 비용을 선거비용으로 신고한 것과 어긋나 그대로 믿기는 어렵지만, 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 그 다과류 구입일이 피고인이 선거사무장과 회계책임자의 신분에 있던 시기라고 인정하기 어려우므로 위 금액은 선거비용으로 회계보고된 225,856,801원에서 공제하기로 한다.

8) Whether the election expenses No. 8 No. 1,541,160 are included in the table 8

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged that the above promotional materials are election expenses paid by the defendant, but the non-indicted 70, etc. who has made an actual accounting report, did not make an accounting report due to negligence in the course of business that did not confirm the receipt for the dispatch expenses, and did not make an accounting report with the intent to "discipating revenues and expenditures of political funds". Thus, the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the above promotional materials

B) Determination

However, this part of the crime is established when the election campaign manager and accountant in charge have disbursed the election expenses in excess of the restricted amount of election expenses. As such, the circumstances that Nonindicted 70, etc., who made the actual accounting report, failed to verify the above dispatch expense receipt at the time of the accounting report do not affect the establishment of the above crime, and even if the Defendant made the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that there was no intention on the payment of election expenses, it cannot be deemed that there was no intention on the payment of the expenses, unless the Defendant had paid the expenses of KRW 1,541,160 for the promotional materials of the preliminary candidate.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue are not accepted.

9) Whether the election expenses No. 9 No. 700,000 are included in the table 9

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the defendant conspired with the defendant 4 to deliver 700,000 won to the defendant 5, the above amount is not included in election expenses paid by the defendant.

B) Determination

(1) In the case of co-offenders who act in collusion with two or more persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is sufficient if there is an implicit communication on the joint execution of the crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices, and if there is no direct evidence, it can be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2014, Sept. 9, 2005, etc.).

(2) On April 5, 2012, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed as follows. The Defendant was reported to an accountant in charge of Nonindicted 2’s election campaign office until April 5, 2012. Defendant 4, upon the consent of the Defendant, delivered KRW 1,350,00 to Nonindicted 3 via Nonindicted 56’s account. Defendant 5 was given KRW 70,000 from the same account on the same day, and Defendant 5 was appointed as an election campaign worker on March 29, 2012, and was removed from the election campaign office for which the election campaign manager was removed, and Defendant 2 was replaced with the election campaign manager at the election campaign office for whom the election campaign manager was removed. Defendant 5 was working within the election campaign office for the first time, and Defendant 5 was also replaced with the election campaign manager at the election campaign office for whom the election campaign manager was removed from the election campaign office for the first time, and Defendant 3 and his accountant in charge was also identified as Defendant 5’s election campaign report stating that he was removed from the election campaign office.

(3) Accordingly, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue shall not be accepted.

10) Whether the aggregate of No. 10 No. 340,000 won was included in the election expenses

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant did not pay food expenses in addition to legal allowances to non-indicted 7, a △△ election campaign worker.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, namely, Nonindicted 7, 9, 10, and 8, an election campaign worker, who is the △△△ election campaign liaison office, stated that Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 21 received food expenses other than statutory allowances. Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 21 also stated that they paid food expenses to Nonindicted 7, etc. at their own expense. However, Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 21 stated that the aforementioned election campaign worker paid food expenses at KRW 340,00,000 in total, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 60 and Nonindicted 21 had spent food expenses for the election campaign worker at their own expense without the prior approval of the person responsible for the election expenses 】 (i) Nonindicted 60 and Nonindicted 21, which were recorded in the election campaign liaison office’s election campaign liaison office’s general account payment 】60 days, and that Nonindicted 60 and Nonindicted 21, who was recorded in the election campaign liaison office’s general account payment 】60-day election campaign worker’s general account payment 】

Therefore, the above KRW 340,00 corresponds to the election expenses that the defendant promised to deliver from the status of the person in charge of accounting, and thus, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue are not accepted.

11) Whether the sum of No. 11 No. 560,000 won was included in the election expenses

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no fact that the defendant paid legal allowances to four dancing members, and that the said money was only the money paid individually by Nonindicted 27 who operated a dance team.

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, Nonindicted 22, 23, 24, and 25, a dance member, made a report on appointment of an election campaign worker at ○○ election campaign office on March 29, 2012, and was removed from the election campaign worker on March 31, 2012, Defendant 3 made a statement that he/she had affixed the Defendant’s seal on his/her appointment report with the Defendant’s permission from the prosecutor, and Nonindicted 26 also stated that he/she introduced Nonindicted 27 to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request for the exclusion of the dance member. Nonindicted 27 stated that Nonindicted 27 paid the said money to the dance members individually from the investigative agency and this court, but it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 27 was paid an allowance to the dance members appointed as the election campaign worker at least by the ○○ election campaign office 】 200 members who received the said allowance from the prosecutor’s office without involvement of the person concerned 】 270 members who received the said allowance from the prosecutor’s election commission.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

12) Whether the election expenses No. 12 No. 12 are included in the table

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel knew that the cost of production and delivery of the above-mentioned sewage was not election expenses, but election expenses, and the person in charge of the actual accounting report was aware of such error, as well as the person in charge of the actual accounting report, and failed to verify evidential documents as to the cost of delivery, and omitted in the accounting report, and there was no awareness that "the revenue and expenditure of the political fund" was "the revenue and expenditure of the political fund at the time of the accounting report." Thus, the defendant asserts that the facts charged

B) Determination

As long as the defendant produced and dispatched the annual 1,000 copies for an election campaign, the expenses required therefor shall be included in the election expenses, and even if the defendant mispercing that the expenses are not expenses for election expenses, it does not affect the establishment of the crime.

In addition, this part of the crime is established when the election campaign manager or accountant in charge has paid election expenses in excess of the oath expense limit. As such, since the person who has made the actual accounting report was aware of the above expenses and failed to verify evidential data on the dispatch expenses, the production expenses are reported to the expenses outside the election and the return of the dispatch expenses was omitted at the time of the accounting report, and the fact that the report on the dispatch expenses was omitted does not affect the establishment of the above crime, and even if the defendant acted to the purport that the defendant did not have any intention to pay the election expenses, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had no intention to do so, as seen earlier, since the defendant made and dispatched the annual 1,00 copies of the

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue cannot be accepted.

13) Whether the election expenses expenses No. 13 are included in the table No. 13

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the purport that the defendant's production and delivery expenses cannot be included in election expenses because he did not have any evidence that the actual delivery expenses are KRW 2,430,00,000, while the defendant produced a tobacco hold 9,000, and that the above production and delivery expenses cannot be included in election expenses, and Nonindicted 70, who made an actual accounting report, did not know the production of the above annual hold 9,000, did not include the relevant expenses at the time of the accounting report. Thus, it cannot be said that the above amount was omitted while recognizing and citing that "the revenue and expenditure of political funds are concealed", and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty.

B) Determination

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he produced and dispatched the above Chapter 9,00 in violation of the Public Official Election Act. As such, the production and dispatch expenses are included in election expenses, and according to the report on confirmation of postal payment (Evidence No. 238 of the above evidence list), it can be recognized that the postal charges in the year are 2,430,00 won per ordinary head (=9,000 x 270 won).

In addition, this part of the crime is established when the election campaign manager or accountant in charge has paid election expenses in excess of the oath expense limit. Thus, the circumstance that Nonindicted 70, who has made the actual accounting report, was omitted at the time of the accounting report due to Nonindicted 70’s failure to know the production of the above annual lower-ranking, does not affect the establishment of the above crime, and even if it was decided to the effect that the Defendant did not have an intention to pay election expenses, as seen earlier, even if the Defendant did not intend to do so, it cannot be deemed that there was no intention to do so as long as the Defendant made, dispatched, and sent

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this issue are not accepted.

14) Whether an amount of election expenses No. 14 is included in the table No. 14

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since the defendant paid 4,00,000 won and food expenses of 78,000 won to non-indicted 6, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be included in election expenses.

B) Determination

(1) Part of the cost of speech 4,000,000

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant paid KRW 4,00,000 to Nonindicted 6 as the campaign speech expense during the period from April 11, 2012 to May 10, 2012. Nonindicted 6 promised to receive KRW 4,00,000 in return for the campaign speech when the Defendant was appointed as the election campaign worker at the time when the election campaign manager and accountant in charge were in the status of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge. As such, the above KRW 4,00,000 is included in the election expenses that the Defendant promised to deliver in the position of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge.

(2) Food expenses of KRW 78,000

On April 5, 2012, as seen earlier, the Defendant was reported as an accountant in charge of the ○○ election campaign office until April 5, 2012, and prior to the report on replacement with Defendant 3, it is reasonable to view that the said money was an election expenses that the Defendant granted or promised to grant to Nonindicted 6, a person in charge of the election campaign worker, through Nonindicted 11, who is the person in charge of the tax base for the election campaign period, with prior approval of the expenditure of meal expenses other than the statutory allowances for the ○○ election campaign workers, including Nonindicted 6, etc., before the person in charge of accounting, to be replaced with Defendant 3.

(3) Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant and his defense counsel.

15) Whether 225,856,801 won (refer to attached Form No. 5 of charges) that was an accounting report for election expenses to the election commission of ○○○-Gun is election expenses provided, delivered or promised by the defendant in the status of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge.

A) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that this part of the facts charged was not specified, and that even during 225,856,801 won, when the defendant is in the status of election campaign manager and accountant in charge, such as election campaign workers, statutory allowances, etc., he did not participate in the expenses, and thus, he cannot be held liable to the defendant for the excessive disbursement of the restricted amount of election expenses.

B) Determination

(1) 살피건대, 앞서 인정된 피고인이 선거사무장과 회계책임자 신분에서 지출한 선거비용은 21,568,067원[검사가 별지 공소사실에서 선거비용 추가 합산 금액으로 주장한 33,960,057원에서 피고인이 지출한 선거비용으로 인정되지 않은 ◈◈◈◈◈◈의 래핑비 10,450,000원, 1t 차량 2대의 임대료 합계 600,000원(=300,000원×2), 공소외 3에게 2.5t 차량 1대 임차료 명목으로 지급한 1,350,000원 중 1,200,000원, 일부 다과류 구입비 141,990원을 제외한 금액]이다.

In addition to the above election expenses, it is examined whether the amount of the accounting report made with the election expenses to the election commission of ○○○-Gun was KRW 225,856,801, and whether the defendant among the above expenses was not involved in the disbursement when he is in the status of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge, as alleged by the defendant.

(2) Of the statutory allowances for the election campaign workers, the statutory allowances for the election campaign worker 2,160,000 won are excluded.

(A) Of 31,020,000 won for statutory allowances for ○○ Election Campaign Workers, excluded from KRW 2,160,000 [Evidence List No. 6053, 10537, 10538 of the Evidence Record (Evidence No. 6053, 2012, No. 153-3 of the Evidence List No. 10538 of the said Record]

According to “Nonindicted 2 Candidates (○○, △△, and △△),” and “The allowances for election campaign workers, actual expenses (number of evidence Nos. 153-10) submitted by Nonindicted 2 when the accounting report was made,” Nonindicted 16 (Legal Allowances 450,000), Nonindicted 26 (Legal Allowances 280,000), Nonindicted 72 (Legal Allowances 280,000), Nonindicted 73 (Legal Allowances 280,000), Nonindicted 5 (Legal Allowances 210,000), Nonindicted 31 (Legal Allowances 210,000), and Defendant 3 (450,000,000,000,000 won) and the fact that the Defendant lost his status as the election campaign manager and accountant in charge, and the Defendant lost his status as the election campaign worker’s election campaign manager and accountant in charge, and the Defendant lost his status as the election campaign worker’s election campaign worker’s election campaign worker’s election campaign manager and accountant’s election.

(B) Election expenses including full amount of △△△ and △ Election Campaign Workers’ legal allowances

According to the above "Revenue and expenditure division of political funds (No. 153-3, No. 3, 4, 5, 9 of the above records)", "Non-Indicted 2 accounts (Account No. 153-31 of the above evidence list)," and "political fund revenue and expenditure division (No. 153-32, 315 of the above evidence list)" of the △△△△ election campaign liaison office, which were submitted to the election commission of the △△△△-Gun, (see the above evidence list), and "△△△△ election campaign worker's statutory allowances are directly paid at the ○○ election office, and the △△△△ election campaign worker's legal allowances are paid after being transferred from the △△○ election campaign office to the election campaign liaison office, and the accounts and funds are managed at the election campaign office at the △△△△△○ election campaign office, and the election campaign worker and person in charge of accounting of the defendant were found to have been paid by the above candidate at the election campaign manager at the time of △△△△△△ and the defendant."

(3) Of the remainder election expenses, the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 3,164,280 (=407,500 +827,780 +150,000 + +780,000 +80,000 +80,000 + (19,000)

○○○ Election campaign office spent on April 27, 2012 at the election campaign office, 220,000 won out of the fuel expenses of the oil (the above evidence list Nos. 153-3, No. 153-3, and No. 4 of the same title), which was paid on April 27, 201, and the fuel expenses (the aggregate of 407,500 won out of the oil expenses (the 10 pages of the same title) of the oil expenses, such as the oil expenses of the oil station, paid on May 1, 2012.

- From 991,875, 991, 400, the sum of 187,500,000, of the oil expenses paid after the Defendant lost the status of the election campaign manager and the accountant in charge (section 83 of the same title) and 220,500,000,000, of the oil expenses paid after the above time (section 226 of the same title) (=187,50,000 + 220,000,000)

○○○○ Election Campaign Office’s purchase cost of KRW 100,00,00, 50,000, 50,000, 77,000, 77,000, 300,000, 300,000, 300,000,000, 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,0

- The day of transaction is excluded from election expenses paid by the Defendant because it is difficult to recognize the Defendant as the time when the Defendant was in charge of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge (Article 88, 89, 89, 90, 91, 98, 224, 225 pages).

Of the expenses, such as banners, etc. (the aforementioned evidence list Nos. 153-32, 315 pages) paid on May 1, 2012 at the ○○○ △△△ election campaign liaison office, 150,000 won shall be excluded.

- The trading date from March 27, 2012 to April 10, 2012. The defendant excluded 150,000 won from total expenses of KRW 6,385,00, which was made on April 10, 2012 after he/she loses his/her status as an election campaign manager and accountant in charge, from total expenses of KRW 6,235,000 (=6,385,000 - 150,000) from the election expenses spent by the defendant (asp. 324 of the same title)

○ △△ 선거연락소에서 2012. 5. 1. 지출된 ▲▲▲▲의 명함 780,000원(같은 권 제315면) 제외

- ▲▲▲▲ 운영자인 공소외 28의 검찰 진술에 의하면, 총 4회에 걸쳐 분할하여 명함 26,000장을 제작, 공급하였다는 것인바, 그 거래일이 피고인이 선거사무장과 회계책임자의 신분에 있던 시기라고 인정하기 어려워 피고인이 지출한 선거비용에서 제외(같은 권 제328, 329면).

The sum of KRW 100,000,000, and KRW 700,000,000, and KRW 315,000,00, which are paid on May 1, 2012 at the ○○ △△△ election campaign liaison office (=100,000, + 700,000,000) are excluded;

- The defendant's transaction date is excluded from election expenses paid by him because it is difficult to recognize him as the time when the defendant was in charge of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge (33-336 pages of the same right).

The oil expenses (in the face value 315 pages 315 of the same title) paid on May 1, 2012 in the ○○ △△△ election campaign liaison office shall be excluded from KRW 199,000,000.

- Oil expenses of KRW 585,000,000, not including KRW 199,000,000, paid by the Defendant after he lost his status as an election campaign manager and accountant in charge (No. 339,000)

(4) Other election expenses paid by Defendant are included.

According to the evidence examined above, the remainder election expenses except for the above-mentioned pin-law were delivered by the defendant until April 5, 2012, which was held by the election campaign manager and accountant in charge, or the transaction day was transferred on or before April 5, 2012 by evidentiary documents submitted by the defendant at the time of the accounting report or by the party to the transaction, or by the party’s statement at the election campaign commission and the prosecutor’s office, etc. In addition, the promotional materials, placards, signboards, etc. of the candidate are for public relations, and it is in accord with the empirical rule to deem that the candidate entered into a contract for production prior to the commencement date of the election campaign period for telephone publicity. The telephone expenses for the election campaign period for telephone publicity are expenses that the defendant was planned to make a disbursement to promote the candidate’s telephone at each election campaign office and election campaign liaison office at the time when the defendant was in the status of the election campaign manager and accountant in charge. Accordingly, they are

C) Accordingly, among 225,856,801 won, when the Defendant provided, delivered, or promised to pay election expenses at the time when he/she was held the status of the election campaign manager or accountant in charge, 220,532,521 won (=25,856,801-2,160,160,000 won-3,164,280 won).

16) The probative value of the documents, “expenses” documents, “the details of post payment” documents, and “the relationship of volunteers” documents.

A) Meanwhile, the Defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged that the Defendant spent the election expenses of KRW 910,00 on Nonindicted 29, 29, 700,000 on volunteers Defendant 5, the meal expenses of △△ election campaign workers, KRW 340,00 on volunteers, and KRW 78,00 on Nonindicted 6 of the ○○ election campaign worker, Nonindicted 68,000 on the ○○○○ election campaign worker, etc. as evidence. Each of the above documents used as evidence was prepared by preparing for the Defendant to go to the election of the National Assembly members or ○○○○ head of the Gun, in order to see the Defendant’s estimation of the election expenses, as stated in each of the above documents, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the actual election expenses were paid as stated in each of the above documents, and thus, each of the above documents asserted to the effect that their credibility is very doubtful with evidence supporting the facts charged.

B) In light of the fact that ○○○○○○ Election Campaign Office and △△○○○○○○ Election Campaign Office’s respective documents were seized, the Defendant did not make any such statement as is favorable to △△○○○○ Election Campaign Office, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Election Campaign Office’s records and investigation into the particulars or contents of the above documents; the number indicated in the above documents is very specific; ○○○○○ Election Campaign Office’s records and KRW 100,000,000,000 for the election campaign workers and KRW 10,000,000,000 for the election campaign workers and KRW 10,000,000,000,000, KRW 37,830,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00.

17) Sub-decisions

Therefore, among KRW 33,960,057, the prosecutor alleged in the attached facts charged, the defendant among KRW 21,568,067, which was recognized as having been an election campaign manager or accountant in charge at the time when the election campaign was held, delivered, or promised to be election expenses, and KRW 225,856,80,01, which was approved as having been for election expenses by the election campaign commission of ○○ military, and KRW 220,532,521, which was recognized as having been for election expenses to have been provided, delivered, or promised to be paid by the defendant at the time when the election campaign manager or accountant in charge was held (= KRW 242,10,568,067 + KRW 220,532,521). As such, the defendant's assertion that the election expenses exceeded KRW 250,000, KRW 280, KRW 108,000, KRW 2080, KRW 2080, KRW 2086,000.

5. Whether the offense described in subparagraph 1-e of the holding constitutes an offense;

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that there was no fact that the Defendant paid the food expenses of △△△ Election Campaign Workers in addition to the legal allowances, but it can be recognized that the Defendant paid the above money as seen above. Thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel disputing this point are without merit.

6. Whether the crime specified in paragraph (1) of Article 2 of the judgment is established;

A. The defendant 2 and his defense counsel's arguments

The defendant and his defense counsel did not deposit the support money into the deposit account reported to the competent election commission even after the defendant received it, but when the support money was deposited into the account, it was not immediately deposited due to the time to grasp the personal information of the sponsor, and since the full amount was deposited into the deposit account, the defendant did not constitute a crime of Article 47 (1) 9 of the Political Funds Act.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant stated to the effect that, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not immediately deposit the support fund into the account of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association (Account No. 2 omitted) from May 15, 2012 to May 18, 2012. The Defendant stated to the effect that, despite having been granted KRW 29,700,000 for the support fund received from Defendant 1 and the election expenses KRW 4,000 for the election expenses to be paid to △△△△△△△ election campaign liaison office, the Defendant did not deposit it in the account of the said association in cash. However, the Defendant did not accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not deposit the support fund in cash from his/her office to his/her office, etc., in light of the fact that the Defendant did not receive the said support fund from his/her last election campaign from January 31, 2012 to his/her prosecutor’s office, and that the Defendant did not receive the said support fund from his/her own account.

7. Whether the offense described in paragraph (3) of the judgment is established

A. The defendant 3 and his defense counsel's arguments

The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, after the Defendant filed a claim for the preservation of election expenses, the amount of the claim for the preservation of election expenses was first nationwide and the prosecution was locked to investigate Nonindicted Party 2’s candidate’s side. As such, the Defendant did not participate in the accounting report made on May 11, 201, and Nonindicted Party 70, a person in charge of accounting of the △△-gun election campaign liaison office, received the aid from Nonindicted Party 16, an election campaign manager of ○○-gun, and made the accounting report.

B. Determination

살피건대, 위에서 거시한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인은 2012. 4. 6.부터 ○○ 선거사무소의 회계책임자로 선임, 신고되어 있을 뿐만 아니라, 2012. 4. 23. ○○ 선거관리위원회에 그 선거비용 보전청구를 직접 했던 점, 위와 같은 선거비용 보전청구 업무와 회계보고 업무는 선거사무소의 업무 중 회계책임자가 하여야 할 가장 중요한 업무로서 피고인이 그전 회계책임자로 신고된 피고인 1로부터 그 업무를 인수, 인계받으면서 선거사무소의 선거비용 지출과 관련한 업무도 당연히 인수, 인계를 받았다고 보이는 점, 피고인은 실제 선거비용 보전청구 업무를 담당하였고, 피고인 1과 ‘비용’ 문서도 함께 작성하여 그 선거비용의 실제 지출 내역과 규모를 어느 정도 파악하고 있었다고 보이는 점, 피고인은 검찰 조사에서 2012. 4. 23. 선거비용 보전청구를 한 후 몸이 아파 병원에 입원해 있는데 2012. 4. 6.부터 ○○ 선거사무소의 선거사무장으로 선임, 신고된 공소외 16이 공소외 2 후보의 회계보고서를 가져와 이를 보고 자신의 도장을 날인해 주었다고 진술한 점, 공소외 16도 검찰 조사에서 피고인에게 회계보고서 내용을 보여주니 피고인이 30~40분 정도 이를 검토한 후 피고인의 도장을 날인하였다는 취지로 진술하고 있어 위 피고인의 검찰 진술을 뒷받침하고 있는 점, 실제 선거관리위원회에 회계보고하면서 제출된 ‘정치자금 수입·지출보고서’에는 회계책임자인 피고인의 날인이 있는 점, 피고인, 공소외 16, 70은 이 법정에서 피고인이 2012. 4. 23. 선거비용 보전청구를 잘못하고 그 다음 날 선거사무소에서 검찰의 압수, 수색이 이루어지자 잠적하여 부산 등지를 돌아다니다가 2012. 5. 4.경부터 ■■■병원이나 ◆◆◆◆◆◆의원에 입원해 있던 관계로 선거사무소 업무에 전혀 관여하지 않았고, 공소외 70 등이 회계보고 업무를 하면서 선거사무소 내에 있던 피고인의 도장을 위 ‘정치자금 수입·지출보고서’에 임의로 날인하였을 뿐이나, 피고인이 회계보고 업무에 전혀 관여하지 않았다고 사실대로 진술할 경우 피고인에게 불이익이 돌아갈 수 있어 검찰에서 거짓 진술을 한 것이라고 진술하나, 피고인이나 공소외 16은 검찰에서 위와 같은 취지의 진술을 전혀 하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인이 검찰에서 선거비용의 지출 등과 관련하여 이미 피의자 신분으로 조사를 받고 있는 상황에서 회계보고 업무에 전혀 관여하지 않았다고 사실대로 진술할 경우 피고인에게 어떤 불이익이 돌아간다는 것인지도 불분명하고, 회계책임자인 피고인이 그 회계보고 업무에 전혀 관여하지 않았다거나 자신의 도장을 선거사무실에 놔둔 채 그대로 잠적하였다는 것은 경험칙에 비추어 선뜻 이해하기도 어려워 피고인, 공소외 16, 70의 이 법정 진술은 이를 그대로 믿기 어려운 점, 공소외 70 등은 이 법정에서 피고인이 잠적한 후 회계보고 업무를 할 수 없어 ○○군 선거관리위원회에 회계책임자 교체를 문의하였고, 위 ‘정치자금 수입·지출보고서’에 피고인의 서명을 받을 수 없는 관계로 피고인의 기명날인이 되어 있다고 진술하나, 회계책임자의 공직선거법위반죄 성부가 문제될 경우 그 당선무효형 선고가 염려되어 회계책임자 교체를 문의한 것일 수도 있을 뿐만 아니라, 공소외 70이 △△ 선거연락소에서 제출한 ‘정치자금 수입·지출보고서’에도 회계책임자 공소외 70의 기명, 날인만이 되어 있어 위와 같은 사정만으로 피고인, 공소외 16의 검찰 진술을 배척하고 피고인이 회계보고 업무에 전혀 관여하지 않았다고 볼 수 없는 점, 피고인은 선거비용 제한액의 99%에 달하는 금액(235,054,241원)에 대하여 2012. 4. 23. 선거비용 보전청구를 하였고, 그 다음 날 선거사무소에서 압수, 수색을 당하여 피고인을 비롯한 선거관계자들이 위 회계보고 당시에는 총선거비용이 선거비용제한액을 초과할 수 있음을 충분히 알 수 있었다고 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 회계책임자로서 그 회계보고 업무에 관여한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 피고인이 2012. 7. 20.경 그 처를 통하여 선거관리위원회에 제출된 회계보고 서류를 복사하였다는 사정만으로 이와 달리 볼 수 없으므로, 이 점을 다투는 피고인과 그 변호인의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

다만, 정치자금법 제49조 제1항 의 죄는 ‘선거비용’에 대하여 허위기재 및 누락을 하였을 경우에 성립되는 범죄인데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 ◈◈◈◈◈◈의 래핑비 10,450,000원, 1t 차량 2대의 임대료 합계 600,000원(=300,000원×2), 2.5t 차량 임대료 중 1,200,000원은 선거비용으로 인정되지 않아 이를 선거비용으로 볼 수 없으므로(일부 다과류 구입비 141,990원은 피고인 1이 선거사무장과 회계책임자의 신분에서 지출한 선거비용이 아닐 뿐 공소외 2 후보 측에서 선거운동을 위하여 지출한 비용임은 인정되므로 그 허위기재, 누락의 범위에 포함한다), 피고인이 회계보고 당시 위 비용을 선거비용으로서 허위기재, 누락하였다고 할 수는 없다. 따라서, 위 비용에 대한 허위기재, 누락에 대하여는 피고인에게 그 책임을 물을 수 없다.

8. Whether a crime under paragraph (4) of the judgment is established

A. Defendant 1

1) Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel have prepared a new contract and a written estimate to the effect that the term of lease stated in the contract and written estimate prepared by the defendant for the lease of 1t vehicle from △△△△, different from the term of lease originally agreed upon, so that it can be consistent with the actual term of lease. The new contract and written estimate included the contents of the lease of 2.5t vehicle for one day in the new contract and written estimate. However, the actual 2.5t vehicle was used for one day after receiving from Nonindicted Company 1, and it was only included in the contract, etc. prepared for a new one day without any evidentiary document. Thus, it is asserted to the effect that there was no intention to falsely prepare the

2) Determination

In light of the above facts, it is clear that the defendant leased 1t vehicle from ○○ Military Election Commission to April 10, 2012, the period from March 30, 2012 to April 10, 2012, it cannot be deemed that he newly prepared the above contract and quotation in order to make the defendant coincide with the period of lease actually agreed, and there is no fact that he leased 2.5t vehicle from △△△△, and Nonindicted 32 requested the commission of ○○ Military Election Commission and the prosecutor's office to request for the change of the service period of the original written estimate after the election is completed, and that the defendant himself is not a party to the lawsuit, but the defendant must be aware of the fact that the above contract and quotation are false, and thus, the defendant and his defense counsel are not accepted.

B. Defendant 1, 3

1) Summary of the assertion

The Defendants and their defense counsel asserts that Defendant 3 did not take any part in the false preparation of the above contract and written estimate.

2) Determination

A) According to the following circumstances, Defendant 1, at the time of the first investigation conducted by the prosecutors’ office, stated that the term of lease of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 16 were different from that of the original contract, and that the said Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 3’s written estimate and written contract for the election expenses were to be prepared at the time of the revision of the said written contract, and that the said written statement and written statement were to be prepared to the effect that only one of Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 16 had to be revised, and that one of them had to be posted at the time of the subsequent investigation conducted by the prosecutor’s office. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4 were recorded in the said written contract for the election expenses at least 60,000, and that there was no new entry in the written contract for the election expenses at least 40,000,000 won, as the result of the said revision of the said written contract and written statement made by Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 16.

B) Therefore, the Defendants and their defense counsel disputing this issue cannot be accepted.

9. Whether an offense described in paragraph (5) of the judgment is established

Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that there was no fact that the defendant conspireds with Defendant 4 that he paid KRW 700,000 to Defendant 5. However, as seen earlier, it can be acknowledged that the defendant conspired with Defendant 4 and paid the above KRW 700,000 to Defendant 5. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel disputing this point are rejected.

1. Defendant 1’s week

(a) A violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the distribution of documents by unlawful means;

In light of the fact that the Defendant sent a lot of tobacco in violation of the Public Official Election Act and the volume thereof reaches 10,00 won, the Defendant’s above act was a criminal that undermines the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act that intends to ensure the fairness of election, and the Defendant was a criminal who was going out of the election of ○○○ head, and the Defendant committed the above crime even though he was in the status of an election manager or accountant in charge of the election campaign office of a candidate for Nonindicted Party 2 National Assembly member from December 13, 2011 to April 5, 2012, the Defendant requires punishment corresponding to the relevant

However, there is no previous difference in the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than the fine prior to the crime of this case, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime of this case, shall be determined as the order.

B. The remainder of each judgment

The Public Official Election Act strictly regulates acts of offering money or goods related to election campaigns or excessive election expenses in order to ensure that elections are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures and to prevent illegal elections. However, from December 13, 201 to April 5, 2012, the defendant, who was appointed and reported as an election campaign manager or accountant in charge of accounting of the candidate for non-party 2 National Assembly members, in violation of the Public Official Election Act, or provided money or goods other than legal allowances to election campaign workers through related persons, and paid election expenses in excess of the limit under the Public Official Election Act, the fact that the defendant paid election expenses in excess of the limit under the Public Official Election Act, the fact that the circumstances after the crime are considerably poor, such as denying the crime of this case or making false statements after the fact that the defendant is expected to be held liable in excess of election expenses, after the investigation process, are consistent with the criminal liability corresponding to the defendant.

However, when the election campaign manager or accountant in charge was found guilty, the excessive disbursement of the election expenses of the defendant would result in about 60 million won, and the defendant erred in interpreting the provision related to election expenses and misleads the defendant for expenses other than election expenses. There is no previous charge, and there is no criminal punishment for the defendant prior to the crime of this case, and there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than the fine prior to the crime of this case, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be

2. Defendant 2

In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in connection with the election of a National Assembly member even though he was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million due to the violation of the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act in 2003, the Defendant not only did it deposit in the political fund reporting account, but also did not issue or issue a receipt of political funds for such support payments, and did not attach receipts and other documentary evidence as above at the time of the accounting report. The Defendant’s act goes against the legislative purpose of the Political Fund Act to disclose the revenue and expenditure details and to secure transparency of political funds by disclosing them. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in relation to the election of a National Assembly member even though he had been sentenced to a fine of KRW 3,70,000 as a result of a violation of the Election of Public Officials Act and the Prevention

However, considering the fact that the defendant shows an attitude against his mistake, the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined like the order.

3. Defendant 3

From April 6, 2012, the Defendant was anticipated to be paid election expenses in excess of the restricted amount of election expenses publicly announced by the election commission even though he was appointed and reported as the accountant in charge of the ○○ election campaign office for the National Assembly member from 2012, and the Defendant entered false matters in collusion with Defendant 1 concerning the details of election expenses spent at the time of the accounting report. The above act of the Defendant goes against the legislative purpose of the Political Fund Act that strictly regulates the accounting report, etc. on political funds in order to ensure transparency by guaranteeing the proper provision of political funds, disclosing the details of revenue and expenditure, and preventing the illegality related to political funds, thereby preventing thereby contributing to the sound development of democratic politics. The false matters entered or omitted matters are not stated, and the Defendant was not required to punish the Defendant, who was not involved in the accounting report at all at the time of the accounting report in order to relieve him from liability.

However, the sentencing conditions as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case, and the age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime of this case as shown in the arguments of this case, etc.

4. Defendant 4

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Election Crimes, Purchase and Understanding, and Second Type (General Purchase)

[Special Mitigation] Where minor money, goods, etc. are provided for an election campaign at a cost or ex officio level.

[Scope of Recommendation] Fines 1 million won to 5 million won (Discretionary area)

(b) Determination of sentence;

The defendant provided 630,00 won to the defendant 5 who is not an election campaign worker who is entitled to receive allowances, etc. under the Public Official Election Act. In light of the fact that the above act of the defendant is a criminal that damages the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act to ensure fairness in election by strictly regulating the act of offering money or goods related to election campaign, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

However, it appears that the defendant provided a relatively small amount of money and valuables to the defendant 5 in terms of compensation for actual expenses, and it is difficult to see that the above crime of the defendant affected the election result, the defendant substituted for the crime of this case, and shows an attitude against his wrongness. In addition, there is no previous record of criminal punishment heavier than the fine prior to the crime of this case, and there is no other history of criminal punishment than the fine prior to the crime of this case, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment

5. Defendant 5

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] Election Crimes, Purchase and Understanding, and Second Type (General Purchase)

[Special Mitigation] Where money, goods, etc. are received for an election campaign at a cost or in a critical manner.

[Scope of Recommendation] Fines 1 million won to 5 million won (Discretionary area)

(b) Determination of sentence;

Although the Defendant did not receive allowances, etc. under the Public Official Election Act, he received KRW 630,00 as a volunteer. In light of the fact that the above act of the Defendant is a criminal that damages the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act to ensure the fairness of election by strictly regulating the act of receiving money and valuables related to election campaigns, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with strict punishment.

However, it appears that the defendant, while acting as a volunteer, could have received a relatively small amount of money and valuables from the perspective of compensation for actual expenses, it is difficult to view that the above crime of the defendant influenced the election result, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and shows an attitude against his mistake. There is no criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case, and there is no other record of punishment prior to the crime of this case, and the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment

1. Defendant 1 (a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to excessive disbursement of election expenses);

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

As shown in the attached list of the facts charged against the defendant.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant spent the election expenses exceeding KRW 6,100,58 with the election expenses exceeding KRW 1,180,58,000,000 (= KRW 242,10,588 - KRW 236,00,000) in excess of the remainder. Moreover, even if the Defendant spent the election expenses after April 6, 2012 when he lost his status as the election manager and accountant in charge as stated in the attached list, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant was guilty of the violation of the Public Official Election Act, in addition to the fact that the Defendant spent the election expenses exceeding KRW 6,10,588 (i.e., KRW 242,100,588 (i., KRW 236,00,000) in excess of the election expenses, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone, as seen above, cannot be recognized that the above offense was established. This part of the charges constitute a case without evidence to prove.

2. Defendant 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant is an accountant in charge of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association.

Where a person in charge of accounting of a candidate's supporters' association in an election for public office receives and disburses political funds, he/she shall make an accounting report on the revenue and expenditure of political funds from the registration date of the supporters' association to April 31, 201, which is 30 days from the election date, to May 11, 2012, which is 30 days after the election date, and submit the current status of property, the amount of revenue and expenditure of political funds, the details of revenue and expenditure, the statement of revenue and expenditure, a copy

The Defendant received KRW 29,700,000 in cash from 36 persons at the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2, located at around March 28, 2012, from Defendant 1, the election campaign manager at the election campaign office of Nonindicted Party 2, located at around ( Address 1 omitted) around 2012, after hearing the horses, and receiving KRW 29,70,000 in cash from Defendant 1 at the same place on April 7, 2012, and Defendant 1 received money from Defendant 1 at the same place.

In addition, the Defendant, at the seat of Nonindicted 2’s supporters’ association office located in the same place as the above election campaign office, around January 17, 2012, set up a banner of the supporters’ association and the entrance signboard of the supporters’ association, and advertised five newspapers of the supporters’ association over five times from February 6, 2012 to April 9, 2012, spent KRW 2,650,000, including the installation cost of banners and the advertising cost of newspaper.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not make an accounting report related to revenue and expenditure until May 11, 2012 to the competent election commission, as well as did not submit the current status of property, the amount of revenue and expenditure of political funds and their details, the statement of revenue and expenditure, and a copy of deposit passbook to the competent election commission.

B. Determination

1) Provisions relating to the Political Funds Act

Article 40 (Accounting Report)

(1) A person in charge of accounting shall make an accounting report on the revenues and expenditures of political funds (hereinafter referred to as "accounting report") to the competent election commission by the following deadline:

5. Candidates and preliminary candidates to run in an election for public office and persons in charge of accounting of the supporters' association;

Until 30 days (40 days for an independent candidate in the presidential election) after the election day as of 20 days after the election day (in cases of a party-recommended candidate in the presidential election, the person in charge of accounting of the preliminary candidate shall be the day preceding the candidate registration

(3) Matters on which the accounting report pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) is made shall be as follows:

1. Political parties and persons in charge of accounting of the supporters' association;

(a) Financial status;

Political parties shall be limited to the accounting report as of December 31.

(b) Revenue details of political funds;

In the case of a person who provides income in excess of KRW 300,00 or exceeding KRW 3 million per year (in the case of a supporters' association for the President candidate, etc. or a supporters' association for the one-time election campaign, five million won), the name, date of birth, address, occupation, telephone number, the date of receipt and the amount thereof, and in the case of a person who provides income in excess of such amount, the number and total amount thereof by the date of receipt: Provided, That

(c) The details of expenditure that are entered in the accounting book pursuant to the provisions of Article 37 (1); and

(4) The accounting report pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) shall be accompanied by the documents falling under each of the following subparagraphs:

1. A detailed statement of revenue and expenditure of political funds;

2. The copies of receipts and evidential documents provided for in the provisions of the main sentence of Article 39 (Receipts and Evidential Documents)

3. A copy of a deposit passbook in which political funds are received and disbursed.

Article 42 (Perusal of Accounting Reports, etc. and Delivery of Copies Thereof)

(2) The competent election commission shall keep the current status of property holdings, the details of revenue and expenditure of political funds and accompanying documents reported pursuant to the provisions of Article 40 (3) and (4) in its office and make it available for public inspection for three months (hereinafter referred to as "inspection period") from the date on which they are published pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1).

(3) Anyone may file an application in writing with the competent election commission for the delivery of a copy of an accounting report, the details of revenue and expenditure of political funds and accompanying documents (excluding documents referred to in subparagraphs 2 and 3) referred to in the provisions of Article 40 (4).

Article 46 (Violation of Various Restrictions)

Any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding six million won:

5. One who has failed to keep the accounting book or entered false matters therein in violation of the provisions of Article 37 (1) or 40 (1) through (4), or has failed to make the accounting report, has failed to submit the current status of property holdings, the amount of revenue and expenditure of the political fund and its details, the statement showing the revenue and expenditure, receipts, evidential documents and the copy of the deposit passbook or has falsely submitted them or has falsely entered, counterfeited or altered receipts concerning revenue and expenditure or other evidential documents;

2) Determination

The crime that is established by failing to make an accounting report among the crimes provided for in subparagraph 5 of Article 46 of the Political Funds Act is established when the person in charge of accounting of the relevant supporters' association fails to make an accounting report under Article 40 of the Political Funds Act, and the accounting report was made, but it is not established when the accounting report was made by omitting some of the revenue or expenditure of the support fund. However, the Defendant, who is a person in charge of accounting of the supporters' association, made an accounting report by omitting some of the revenue or expenditure of the support fund, and did not make an accounting report itself. Thus, the Defendant, who is a person in charge of accounting of the supporters' association, did not make an accounting report itself, is not a crime provided for in subparagraph 5 of Article 46 of the Political Funds Act since he did not make

Furthermore, among crimes under Article 46 subparagraph 5 of the Political Funds Act, the crimes established due to failure to submit the current status of property, the amount of revenue and expenditure of political funds and their details, the statement of revenue and expenditure, and a copy of deposit passbook shall be established when the person in charge of accounting of the relevant supporters' association does not submit the documents stating the current status of property, the amount of revenue and expenditure of political funds and their details, or the statement of revenue and expenditure, or a copy of deposit passbook. The above documents were submitted, but the above documents were not established when the documents were submitted but some of the revenue and expenditure details are not stated. Since the defendant did not submit the above documents itself, since the defendant did not submit the above documents, it cannot be said that the crime under Article 46 subparagraph 5 of the Political Funds Act is established on the ground that the defendant submitted the above documents that did not state the revenue

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Political Funds Act due to failure to submit receipts or other documentary evidence related to such crime, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered in separate

3. Defendant 3

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

As shown in the attached list of the facts charged against the defendant.

B. Determination

살피건대, 정치자금법 제49조 제1항 의 죄는 ‘선거비용’에 대하여 허위기재 및 누락을 하였을 경우에 성립되는 범죄인데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인에 대한 별지 공소사실에 기재된 ◈◈◈◈◈◈의 래핑비 10,450,000원, 1t 차량 2대의 임대료 합계 600,000원(=300,000원×2), 2.5t 차량 임대료 중 1,200,000원은 선거비용으로 인정될 수 없으므로, 피고인이 회계보고 당시 위 비용을 선거비용으로서 허위기재, 누락하였다고 할 수는 없다.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the conviction was found with respect to a crime in the relationship of a single crime, the sentence of

Judges Park Jong-su (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Additional Amount 21,568,067 + Amount of the accounting report for election expenses 225,856,801,220,532,521- Restricted amount of election expenses = 236,00,000 = 6,100,588

(2) Defendant 3, using false documentary evidence as seen above, filed a report on the amount of election expenses to be disbursed in each item of political funds, with only KRW 19,80,00 for △△△ 17 days/lease 15,141,176 for 13 days/lease 17 days/lease 17 days/lease 17 days for the election campaign period, and the remainder of KRW 4,658,824 (=19,800,000-15,141,176).

3) The sentencing criteria for election crimes shall not apply to a part of the case against the defendant, since the case was brought up before the sentencing criteria for election crimes were implemented and the case was in the relation of concurrent crimes with the crimes brought up after the enforcement thereof.

Note 4) Amounting to KRW 33.7 million in the revenue amount of political funds, and KRW 2.90,000 in the expenditure amount of political funds (=2.40,000 + KRW 2.65 million)