[1] The case where the person in charge of accounting can suggest that the disbursement of political funds or the disbursement of election expenses is the same as that made by the person in charge of accounting

[2] The case holding that where a person in charge of accounting and a preliminary candidate engaged in the act of incurring expenditures, such as sale and lease, and a person later transfers money from the deposit account of the above preliminary candidate that is reported to the competent election commission as a deposit account to receive and disburse political funds by means of account transfer using Internet banking, the person in charge of accounting shall be deemed to have paid election expenses in person

[1] Comprehensively taking account of Articles 36(1) and 39 of the Political Fund Act and Article 35(3) of the Political Fund Administration Regulations, the expenditure of political funds that a person in charge of accounting has to delegate in writing to an assistant in the accounting affairs shall be deemed to mean a case where an assistant in the accounting affairs takes the lead in the overall process of expenditure of political funds, such as selling and buying, leasing, etc. in his/her name and receiving evidential documents, such as receipts, etc., and otherwise, where a person in charge of accounting takes an act of incurring expenditure, and the person in charge of accounting prepares receipts and evidential documents, and makes another person make the payment after reserving the payment that inevitably entails an act of incurring expenditure, even if such method is not desirable or recommended, so the person in charge of accounting takes the lead in the overall process of expenditure of election expenses, and so long as the expenditure of political funds is included therein, such logic also constitutes the same.

[2] The case holding that where a person in charge of accounting and a preliminary candidate remitted money from the deposit account of the above preliminary candidate who reported to the competent election commission as a deposit account for revenues and expenditures of political funds by means of account transfer using Internet banking, etc. after selling and buying, leasing, etc., the person in charge of accounting shall be deemed to have paid election expenses on the person in charge of accounting

[1] Articles 36(1) and 39 of the Political Funds Act, Article 35(3) of the Political Fund Management Regulations / [2] Articles 36(1) and 39 of the Political Funds Act, Article 35(3) of the Political Fund Management Regulations

Defendant 1 and one other

Maximumia

Law Firm Asian, Attorney Park Woo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,00, by a fine of KRW 800,000, by a fine of KRW 300,000, and by a fine of KRW 300,00 for the crimes under paragraphs (3) of the crime.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay each fine, the Defendants shall be confined in each Labor House for the period calculated by converting each 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to each fine.

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, those violating the Political Funds Act due to the disbursement of the election expenses of KRW 5,213,560 are not guilty.

The summary of the verdict of innocence shall be published.

Defendant 2 was present at the (name omitted of the constituency) election of a National Assembly member of the Jeju-si Council, which was implemented on May 31, 2006, and was elected by the candidate on March 19, 2006, and held concurrently the position of accountant in charge from the time when Nonindicted 1 was registered as a preliminary candidate on May 18, 2006 to the time when he was appointed as a person in charge of accounting, and Defendant 1 is a volunteer who tried Defendant 2 to carry out an election campaign.

1. Defendant 2:

On May 17, 2006, at the administration of the Agricultural Products Wholesale Market (Trade Omission) Office at the original City level on May 17, 2006, purchasing an amount of KRW 570,000 in cash, and paying election expenses in such a manner that the real name is not verified;

2. The Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 1, a person in charge of accounting, in collusion:

Defendant 2’s election office from May 18, 2006 to June 4, 2006, Defendant 1, who was not an accountant in charge, disbursed election expenses of KRW 26,492,109 by means of Internet banking;

3. Defendant 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 1, a person in charge of accounting,

On June 9, 2006, in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Branch, the election commission, and the election commission, KRW 190,000,000, not in the account, were transferred to the lessor Nonindicted 2 of the election office by means of account transfer, not through the deposit account reported to the election commission, for the purpose of public charges such as telephone charges and water charges for the fifth month of the election office, and was disbursed for political funds.

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement;

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 1 in the third trial record

1. Investigation protocol of Defendant 2 by the prosecution (including the statement portion of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1)

1. Second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 1

1. Each police interrogation protocol against Defendants 1 and 2

1. Investigation protocol of Nonindicted Party 1 by the police officer

1. Investigation report (report on calculation of election expenses and expenses outside an election);

1. A report on revisions to accountant;

1. A list of savings deposit transactions;

1. A copy of each revenue and expenditure book of political funds;

1. Copies of each receipt;

1. A copy of bankbook;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Criminal Claim 1: Articles 49(2)1 and 2(4) of the Political Funds Act.

Criminal Claim 2: Articles 49(2)3, 36(1) and 30 of the Political Funds Act. Article 30 (Selection of Fine)

Criminal Claim 3: Articles 47 (1) 9, 36 (2), and 30 (Selection of Fine) of the Political Funds Act

1. Separation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: Article 18(3) and Article 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (Separation of the violation of the Political Funds Act, Article 18(2) and the violation of the Political Funds Act, Article 18(3) and (3)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act under paragraph (1) of this Article, the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act under paragraph (2) of this Article, the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act under paragraph (2) of this Article, and the crime of violation of the Political Funds Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

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

1. Order of provisional payment;

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

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1, who was not an accountant in charge from April 4, 2006 to May 16, 2006, disbursed election expenses of KRW 5,213,560 by means of Internet banking.”

2. Article 36(1) of the Political Funds Act provides, “The receipt and disbursement of political funds by a candidate and a preliminary candidate for an election of public officials may be made only by the person in charge of accounting: Provided, That this shall not apply where an assistant in charge of accounting who is entrusted with the accounting affairs in writing by setting the purpose and scope of the disbursement to the extent that the details of the disbursement can be known.” However, Article 39 of the same Act provides, “If an assistant in charge of accounting receives and disburses political funds, a receipt and other documentary evidence shall be furnished.” Article 35(3) of the Political Fund Administration Regulations provides, “When an assistant in charge of accounting has disbursed political funds delegated by the person in charge of accounting, a receipt and documentary evidence shall be submitted and settled to the assistant in charge of accounting.” Comprehensively taking account of such relevant statutes, since an assistant in charge of accounting shall purchase and sell political funds in his/her name and lease, etc. and receive receipts for such political funds, etc., the disbursement of political funds shall also be deemed as having been carried out after the following disbursement of political funds.”

3. According to the aforementioned evidence, if Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting, takes an act of incurring expenditure, such as sale and purchase, lease, and possesses receipts and other documentary evidence in an election office, Defendant 1 transferred money based on documentary evidence, such as receipts by account transfer from Defendant 2’s deposit account reported as a deposit account to the competent election commission to receive and disburse political funds through Internet banking, so the disbursement of election expenses shall be deemed to have been made by Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting, and shall not be deemed to have been made by Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting.

4. Since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, a judgment of innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be rendered, and the summary of the verdict of innocence shall be published under Article 58(2)

The part concerning the crime of Paragraph (2) also provides political funds through Internet banking, so the form of expenditure is not different from the portion of innocence. However, this part of the facts charged is guilty on the following facts and reasons recognized based on the aforementioned evidence.

1. Nonindicted Party 1, North Korean defectors, received monthly salary of KRW 600,000, and asked Defendant 1 to appeal the difference in his or her or her allowance to Defendant 1 as an election campaign worker, and to receive allowances as an election campaign worker. Defendant 2 received the recommendation from Defendant 1, but the election campaign worker changed his or her person in charge of accounting who was concurrently held by Defendant 2 to Nonindicted Party 1 and appointed Nonindicted Party 1 as a person in charge of accounting. Nonindicted Party 1 is well aware of not only the content of the election statutes, the concept of accounting, but also whether he or she was appointed as a person in charge of accounting for any reason.

2. After being appointed as a person in charge of accounting, Nonindicted Party 1 was mainly in charge of Defendant 2’s external election campaign or office, such as street personnel, and the overall act of incurring expenditure was Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 was in charge of the accounting thereof. Even if Nonindicted Party 1 was in charge of accounting affairs, it was only a matter of course to arrange receipts by assisting Defendant 1’s duties.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the developments leading up to which Nonindicted 1 was appointed as a person in charge of accounting and the roles of Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 1 and the actual acts, the Defendants appointed Nonindicted 1 as a person in charge of accounting in order to raise Nonindicted 1’s allowance, and disbursed election expenses without distinction between the Defendants and the persons in charge of accounting.

The crime of this case violates the basic and basic obligations of the Political Funds Act to secure transparency by disclosing the details of revenue and expenditure of political funds and prevent illegality related to political funds. In particular, the part of which Nonindicted Party 1 was appointed as a nominal accountant in charge of accounting is likely to be assessed as having a large degree of illegality and deviation by avoiding the legislative intent of the accountant in charge system. However, the crime of Articles 1 and 3 of the crime is somewhat taken into account in the process of the crime, and the crime of Paragraph 2 of the crime is not a malicious crime committed by the defendants, but a crime of Paragraph 2 of the crime seems to have been committed without understanding of the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the meaning of Internet banking in the process of endeavoring to secure the transparency of election expenses.

Judges Juk-man