[1] The meaning of "political funds" prohibited by the Political Funds Act, and whether the crime of receiving and receiving political funds was committed, and whether the donationr used political funds for political activities after the crime of receiving and receiving political funds is affected by the establishment of crime (negative)

[2] In a case where the Defendant, an assistant to a member of the National Assembly, was indicted for violating the Political Funds Act by receiving political funds in a way that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act, the case affirming the judgment below convicting him on the ground that he was found to have received political funds as a person engaging in political activities in relation to his parliamentary

[1] Political funds prohibited by the Political Funds Act refer to all money, etc. provided to persons engaged in political activities for the purpose of political activities. On the other hand, whether a person who contributed political funds actually uses such funds for political activities after the receipt of political funds by means not specified in the Political Funds Act leads to the completion of a crime of illegal receipt of and receipt of political funds, does not affect the establishment of a crime.

[2] In a case where the Defendant, an assistant to a member of the National Assembly, was indicted for violating the Political Funds Act by receiving political funds in a way that does not stipulated in the Political Funds Act, the case affirming the judgment below which convicted him on the ground that he was found to have received political funds as a person engaging in political activities in relation to his parliamentary activities

[1] Articles 3 subparag. 1 and 3 subparag. 2 and 45(1) of the Political Funds Act / [2] Articles 2(1), 3 subparag. 1 and 2, and 45(1) of the Political Funds Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10422 Decided February 26, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 426) Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17886 Decided June 9, 201 (Gong201Ha, 1424)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Lee Jae-hwan et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2012No2688 decided March 22, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

Examining the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that it is difficult to grant credibility to the defendant on June 201 to the statement of the non-indicted 1 that the non-indicted 1 delivered USD 90,00 to the defendant on July 201, since it cannot be ruled out that the non-indicted 1 received USD 90,00 from the non-indicted 2 and did not deliver it to the defendant, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of this part of the conjunctive charges on the ground that comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant was aware that his assistant status of his member of the National Assembly was positively acting for the defendant's employment, that the non-indicted 3 was aware that he was about what he was the defendant, that the non-indicted 3 was aware that he was trying to offer money for monthly salary, or that he was aware that the non-indicted 3 was about the defendant's convenience such as receiving orders for government-funded construction work, or that he was aware that he was about the defendant's offering of money for monthly salary. Under such recognition, the name and contact with the non-indicted 3 was delivered to the non-indicted 3, and allowing the non-indicted 3 to offer a total amount of KRW 186,256,960 on 23 occasions, which was made under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the government-funded construction work, a public official.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act provides that a person who contributes or receives political funds shall be punished in a manner not prescribed by the same Act. Article 3 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “political funds” shall be construed as “party membership fees, support payments, deposits, subsidies, incidental revenues determined by the party constitution or party rules, etc., and other political activities: (a) a person who is elected through an election for public office; (b) a person who intends to be a candidate or candidate; (c) a supporters’ association, executive staff of a political party, or a salaried staff member in charge of clerical services or other persons who are engaged in political activities; and (d) a person who contributes or receives money, securities, or other goods provided to him/her; and (e) a person who contributes or receives political funds in a manner not prescribed by the Political Funds Act shall be construed as “all acts of offering or receiving political funds by an individual, supporters’ association, or other persons for political activities” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1860, supra.

In full view of the facts acknowledged by the adopted evidence, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant, who is engaged in political activities in relation to the parliamentary activities of the National Assembly members belonging to the lower court, received political funds of KRW 17 million from Nonindicted 5 in a way that is not prescribed by the Political Funds Act.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding political funds, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Examining the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted by the court below in light of the records, it is reasonable that the court below recognized that the defendant received a total of KRW 150 million from Nonindicted 6 Co. 7 to six times in return for arranging matters belonging to public officials' duties, such as the acquisition of insolvent savings banks and the relaxation of regulation on savings banks by financial authorities, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on good offices and the violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)