Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Lee Chang-won (Lawsuit) and Kim Jong-chul (Trial)

Law Firm Sejong et al.

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012 Godan1920 Decided January 2, 2013

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although the restriction on the restriction of a period is made to the election day, there is no time limit in the act of offering money, and the act of offering money or goods after the election day is punished as a contribution act by a candidate in the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act, and the interpretation of the act of offering money or goods is contrary to the intent of offering money after the election day in cases where it is difficult to recognize the promise before the election day to the election day, and it is against the intention of offering money after the election day, so it shall be interpreted that the act of offering money after the election day constitutes an act prohibited under Article 50 (1)

2. Determination

On the grounds for appeal of this case by the prosecutor, the court below held Defendant 2 not guilty on the ground that the act prohibited under Article 50 (1) 1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is not included in the act of providing money after the voting for the election of the head of the ○○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, which was held by Defendant 1, but after the election day of the head of the ○○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, it is difficult to suggest that Defendant 1 paid money to Defendant 2, which was provided for the purpose of election for the head of the association with the final decision of election, and that penal provisions should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the principle of no punishment without law.

According to the reasoning of the court below, Article 50 (1) 1 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that not only the act of offering money (a) but also the act of promising to offer money (c) shall be punished as a statutory punishment, such as an election campaign by offering money, in the event of a violation thereof, by stipulating that the act of offering money is limited. ② Where a public prosecutor promises to provide money before and after the election day to do so, the act of offering money may be subject to an election campaign by offering money, and ③ Where a public prosecutor conducts an election campaign by offering money, the form of act under Article 50 (1) 1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which was prosecuted by the public prosecutor, is carried out by providing money, and the decision of the court below is acceptable in full view of the circumstances where it is difficult to view the provision of money itself as an election campaign by the act accompanying the purpose of winning the election, and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)