2017No1538 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

A

Defendant

Park Jong-young (prosecution) and Kim Young-young (Public trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney E, D, C

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2017Gohap4 Decided May 16, 2017

November 2017, 22

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

The property report submitted by the Defendant at the time of the candidate registration for the 20th National Assembly member is entirely prepared by N, and the Defendant did not confirm the contents stated in the above property report and did not know the specific contents. However, in the case of 1/2 shares among the 19th National Assembly member of the 19th National Assembly, which is the property owned by the Defendant, as the 1/2th National Assembly member of the 19th National Assembly, the value of the entire land, which is not the value of the 1/2 shares, was falsely reported as the value of the 1/2 shares, and the 1/2 shares was corrected, and the 1/2 shares were reported as the value of the 1/2 shares was reported as the 1/2 shares at the time of the above candidate registration, and the N was allowed to report it as such. Thus, even if the 1/2 shares were fully reported at the time of the registration of the 1/2th National Assembly member of the 19th National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea, the 1/2th National Assembly member was falsely stated the value of the shares of the Defendant's.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant, without recognizing that the content of N’s property statement was false, submitted it to the election commission and eventually publicly announced false facts as to the Defendant’s property, a candidate. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting

2. Determination

가. 피고인이 원심에서 위 사실오인 및 법리오해 주장과 같은 취지로 주장한 것에 대하여, 원심은 그 판결문 3면 8행 내지 11면 3행에서 다음과 같은 자세한 사정, 즉 ① 피고인의 실제 재산가액은 1,920,613,000원인데 신고한 재산가액은 582,368,000원에 불과하여 축소된 재산가액이 전체 재산가액의 70% 정도인 약 13억 원에 이르는 점, ② 2012년 제19대 국회의원선거 당시 및 2012년부터 2015년까지 4차례의 공직자 재산등록 당시 각 신고한 재산가액은 별다른 변동이 없음)에 반하여 위 제20대 국회의원선 거의 후보자등록 시 신고한 재산가액은 이와 상당한 차이를 나타내는 점, ③ 피고인이 2012년 최초 공직자 재산등록을 할 당시에는 비서진이 피고인의 개입 없이 피고인의 재산내역을 파악할 수 없었을 것이므로 적어도 2012년 당시에는 피고인이 신고된 재산내역이나 가액을 알지 못하였다고 보기 어려우며, 이후 2013년 및 2015년에 방송, 신문 등에서 피고인의 부동산 투기 의혹을 제기하는 보도를 한 것에 대하여 피고인이 적극적으로 이의를 제기하거나 정정보도 등을 요청하는 과정에서도 이 사건 토지의 가액을 당연히 파악하고 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 피고인은 N에게 재산신고 업무를 일임하였고 본인은 그 내역을 확인한 적이 없다고 주장하나, 한편 N로부터 재산총액이 어느 정도인지는 몇 차례 보고받았고 2013년 정기 재산신고 이후의 재산총액이 17~18억 원 정도라는 사실은 알고 있었다고 진술하였으며, 또한 신고된 재산총액이 본인의 생각보다 많은 것 같아 N 등에게 이 사건 토지의 공유관계, 채무내역 등이 제대로 반영된 것인지 확인할 것을 지시하였다고 진술한 점, ⑤ '기존의 재산신고 과정에서 이 사건 토지의 공유지분이 반영되지 않아 기존 토지 가액의 1/2을 축소하여 새롭게 신고한다'는 N의 설명을 듣고 구체적인 계산내역이나 신고내역을 확인하지 않았다는 피고인의 진술은 납득하기 어려우며, 설령 구체적인 계산내역이나 신고내역을 직접 확인하지 않았다 하더라도 적어도 감소액의 규모나 재산총액 정도는 확인하였을 것으로 보이는데, 피고인이 소유한 재산의 가치에 비하여 신고된 재산총액이 너무 과소한 사정 정도는 쉽게 파악할 수 있었다고 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인은 '2016. 4. 1. 개최된 선거 관련 토론회를 준비하는 과정에서는 신고된 재산총액이 5억 8,000만 원 정도로 기존 재산신 고보다 약 13억 원이 줄어들었다는 사실을 파악하게 되었다'고 진술하였는바, 그렇다면 피고인은 적어도 위 토론회를 준비하는 과정에서는 구체적인 재산신고 내역이나 재산감소의 경위를 확인하여 이 사건 토지의 가액이 잘못 공표되었음을 충분히 인식할 수 있었다고 보이는 점, ⑦ 피고인은 기존 공직자 재산등록 시 신고된 재산가액이 오히려 과다하게 산정되어 잘못 되었고 자신의 실제 재산가액은 N가 새롭게 계산한 가액에 가까운 것으로 인식하였다고 주장하나, 그와 같은 인식의 근거로 제시한 계산내역은 8억 2,000만 원 상당의 전세금 채권 등 상당 부분의 적극재산이 누락되거나 토지의 가액이 실제보다 과소하게 평가되고 반면 대출금액은 과다하게 산정되는 등 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑧ 제20대 국회의원선거 당시 이 사건 토지에 대한 부동산 투기 의혹과 함께 피고인의 재산취득과정이 문제가 되었고 타 후보와 경합도 치열하였으므로 피고인으로서는 당선될 목적으로 이 사건 토지의 재산가액이 축소 공표되는 것을 용인할 만한 상당한 동기가 있었다고 보이는 점 등을 설시하면서, 피고인이 이 사건 토지의 재산신고 가액 및 재산총액이 사실과 다르다는 점을 적어도 미필적으로는 인식하였다고 인정하고, 피고인의 주장을 배척하였다.

B. We examine the circumstances acknowledged by the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and closely examine the following circumstances which can be recognized by the above evidence. In addition to the above circumstances, the defendant appears to have been aware that the matters concerning his property stated in the property report submitted to the 20th National Assembly election management committee at the time of the candidate registration for the 20th National Assembly election are false. Thus, it is judged that the defendant submitted the above property report and made it public for the matters concerning the property stated therein constitutes an act of publishing false facts. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of legal principles as alleged by

① The Defendant asserts to the effect that, during the 4 years period in which he was a member of the National Assembly as a member of the 19th National Assembly, he was in charge of property registration and did not confirm all the details of the property registration report during the said period. However, the Defendant is a member of the National Assembly who is obligated to disclose the property registration and the property registration under the Public Service Ethics Act, and even if the Defendant did not prepare and submit a property registration statement directly due to the nature of the business, as alleged by the Defendant, he cannot easily understand that the Defendant submitted a property registration report and submitted it without checking all the details of the property registration statement prepared by the Saman in the process of registering the property over several occasions, and there was no verification of the details of the registered property after the registration was made. Rather, if the Defendant entirely transferred the property registration report to Saman without checking the contents of the property registration report or the final disclosure of the property registration statement, it cannot be said that he had the intention to accept the result even if the report and disclosure was somewhat wrong due to his mistake.

② In light of the aforementioned N’s report (the entire value of the instant land at the time of the registration of the public official’s property was falsely reported as the Defendant’s property value, but the candidate registration only reported the value of 1/2 shares out of the instant land owned by the Defendant), it is evident that the Defendant received N’s report and recognized that “the value of 1/2 shares out of the instant land would decrease in the existing value of the entire property.” However, even if the Defendant’s assertion was made, the value of 1/2 shares exceeds at least KRW 2.3 billion.2 billion. As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the Defendant was aware that the total value of the property at the time of the registration of the public official’s property in 2013 was about KRW 1.7-1.8 billion, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s report constitutes a debt report in excess of KRW 5.6 billion (=17-1.8 billion).

③ Meanwhile, even if the Defendant’s statement was based on the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant was aware that the total amount of his/her property was reduced to approximately KRW 1.3 billion compared to his/her property registration in the process of preparing discussions on April 1, 2016. As such, at least at least at the time of April 1, 2016, the Defendant did not amount to KRW 2.3 billion, which is the value of 1/2 shares out of the instant land.

It could be confirmed that N's property declaration was well-beingd by identifying the circumstances as to whether there was a significant difference in KRW 1.3 billion.

④ The Defendant stated that there was a fact that the Defendant instructed N to have the ownership relationship of the instant land properly reflected at the time of the registration of the existing public official’s property. Thus, it is difficult to view that NN reported the value of the Defendant’s share in the instant land in the process of reporting the ownership of the instant land, without obtaining confirmation from the Defendant as to the accuracy of the value thereof, and it is highly likely that the Defendant reported it after calculating the value of the ownership of the Defendant’s share and obtaining confirmation from the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant appears to have known that the value reported at the time of the registration

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal is groundless and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The presiding judge, Kim Gung-gi

Judges Lee Jin-hee

Judges Choi Ki-won

1) The value of the instant land is approximately KRW 1.8 billion to KRW 2.5 billion; the total value of the instant land is about KRW 1.1 billion to KRW 1.9 billion to KRW 1.9 billion.

each report was filed.

2) In fact, the amount of KRW 2,676,484,00 as of the officially announced value at the time of 2016 or the Defendant’s value of KRW 2.3 billion.

Since it is alleged that he/she was aware of it, the argument is followed.