[1] The elements for the exclusion of illegality of a contribution act that does not fall under the ordinary or official acts under Article 112(2) of the Public Official Election Act

[2] In a case where the president of a community credit cooperative, who has left as a candidate for the election of public officials, provided support money of KRW 100,000 to local organizations such as the Better Tomorrow Council of the relevant Dong, the case holding that it is not illegal since it does not constitute a constituent element under Article 113(1) or 114(1) of the Public Official Election Act, or it does not go against social rules, in light of the details, method, etc. of donation made by community credit cooperatives as a part

[1] Articles 112(2) and 257(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Articles 113(1) and 114(1) of the Public Official Election Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1697 Decided August 22, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1978) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7773 Decided December 9, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1049 Decided April 27, 2006

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 2007No92 Decided April 26, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the offering of money and valuables falling under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act constitutes an act of courtesy or in the performance of duties by the National Election Commission Regulations and the relevant committee's decision based on Article 112(2) of the same Act, where the offering of money and valuables constitutes an act of courtesy or in the performance of duties, it shall be deemed that the violation of Article 257(1)1 of the same Act punishment for a candidate's violation of the prohibition of contribution acts does not meet the constituent elements of Article 257(1)1 of the same Act. Even though the contribution act by the candidate, etc. does not constitute a formal act or in the performance of duties as provided by Article 112(2) of the same Act, if it can be deemed that it is within the scope of social order which is naturally created as one of the normal forms of living, it shall be deemed that the illegality is dismissed as it does not violate social rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do1697, Aug. 22, 2003>

2. Based on the evidence adopted, the court below unilaterally stated that the defendant's name or the defendant's individual donation was not included in the calculation of the amount of 5-year community credit cooperatives other than that of the above 0-year community credit cooperatives, and that the defendant attended the meeting of 0-year community credit cooperatives for 10-year community credit cooperatives or 2-year community credit cooperatives for 0-year community credit cooperatives and 10-year community credit cooperatives, respectively, and held office as the president of the current community credit cooperatives after attending the meeting of 0-year community credit cooperatives for 10-year community credit cooperatives or 2-year community credit cooperatives for 5-year community credit cooperatives to whom the above 1-year community credit cooperatives were distributed. The above community credit cooperatives did not have any error in the law regarding the delivery of 5-year community credit cooperatives to the president of the community credit cooperatives. The amount of 1-year community credit cooperatives' funds to be returned to 0-year community credit cooperatives and the amount of 1-year community credit cooperatives' funds to be distributed to the president.

In addition, if the facts are identical, the defendant's act does not constitute the elements of Article 113 (1) or 114 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, or does not violate the social rules as a formal act or an official act. The judgment below to the same effect is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)