Defendant 1 and two others

Kim Young-soo et al.

Law Firm Lochid, Attorneys Lee Hong-ho et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, by a fine of five million won, respectively.

When Defendant 2 and 3 fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined to the Labor House for the period calculated by converting KRW 50,000 into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A penalty of KRW 158,383,160 shall be collected from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the charge of violation of each of the Political Funds Act related to Nonindicted 5 is acquitted.

피고인 1은 2004. 4. 15. 실시된 제17대 국회의원 선거에서 □□□당 서울 ◆◆◆을 국회의원으로 당선되어 국회 국방위원회, 환경노동위원회, 정보위원회 등에서 상임위원회 활동을 하면서 □□□당 서울시당 위원장, □□□당 제1정책조정위원장을 역임하였으며, 2008. 4. 5. 실시된 제18대 국회의원 선거에서 □□□당 서울 ◆◆◆을 국회의원으로 재선되어 현재 국회정무위원회에서 상임위원회 활동을 하고 있고, 2008. 7. 3. 실시된 □□□당 전당대회에서 최고위원으로 선출되어 활동하고 있는 정치인이다.

In addition, Defendant 1, around June 17, 2008, established a 13 forum, which is a research organization of the National Assembly, to gather public opinion on the legal and institutional innovation measures for national crisis management, and to present policy alternatives for the national defense, economy, and living-based problems, etc., and is acting as the representative until now. On March 23, 2009, in order to check the system that can cope with the national defense, security, and social crisis inside and outside the Korean Peninsula and to prepare a policy alternative to cope with various crisis situations, Defendant 1 organized Nonindicted 14 committee belonging to Doang City Party, and is working as the chairperson of the above committee up to now.

From early 2008 to October 2008, Defendant 3 took part in Defendant 1’s election campaign while working as the vice-chairperson of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Party at Dolsung, from March 2008 to October 2008, and as the chairman of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Party from March 2008 to October 1, 2008. In particular, Defendant 1 took part in Defendant 1’s election campaign as the chief executive officer of the highest executive officer’s special election campaign relating to the highest executive officer’s election campaign conducted on July 3, 2008.

From January 1, 2005 to March 1, 2005, Defendant 2 has overall control over the affairs of the supporters' association as assistant officers (Grade 4 in extraordinary civil service) of Defendant 1 working in the office of Defendant 1's supporters' association in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter 3 omitted).

In spite of the fact that anyone is prohibited from receiving political funds by means that are not provided for in the Political Funds Act, the Defendants received political funds by means that are not provided for in the Political Funds Act, such as not going through a supporters’ association and not exchanging receipt of political funds as follows:

1. The receipt of illegal political funds from Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, etc.

A. On May 208, Defendant 1 heard the horses from Nonindicted 1 of the business president of Nonindicted Co. 2, 2008 to the effect that “I gathered several minutes of the Seoul City Party, and gathered support payments,” Defendant 1 sent the horses to Nonindicted 1 to Defendant 3, the chief executive officer of the special group of the highest group of members, who was the chief executive officer of the special group of members. Accordingly, around May 2008, Nonindicted 1 sent the cash card of Nonindicted 1’s post office account in the name of Nonindicted 1, which was deposited in KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 19 and 38, which was collected from the restaurant near the Seoul Metropolitan City Party’s office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, to Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 used the said funds as funds for Defendant 1’s political activities.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 3 were contributed to political funds of KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 1 in collusion with others in a way that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

B. Around July 2008, Defendant 2, upon Defendant 1’s instruction, asked Nonindicted 1 to provide funding due to insufficient operating expenses of Defendant 1’s National Assembly hall (hereinafter “Council room”)’s office for the National Assembly members. Accordingly, Nonindicted 1 transferred KRW 30 million collected from Nonindicted 19 and Nonindicted 38, etc. on July 10, 2008 to the above post office account in the name of Nonindicted 1, and transferred KRW 8 million by the same method on November 12, 2008. Defendant 1’s employees, upon Defendant 2’s instruction, deposited the cash withdrawal from the above post office account using the above post office cash and used it as funds for Defendant 1’s political activities by depositing it into Defendant 1’s political fund account and using it.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 were contributed to political funds of KRW 38 million from Nonindicted 1 in collusion with others in a way that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

C. Defendant 1 and 2 were employed as the staff of the supporters’ association office from November 2007, and mainly at the time of the election campaign period and the local district event, Defendant 1’s wife Nonindicted 8, while driving Nonindicted 3, who was on Nonindicted 8’s boarding, was charged with Nonindicted 3’s salary to Nonindicted Company 2 by registering Nonindicted 3 as the staff of Nonindicted Company 2.

On May 208, Defendant 2 requested Nonindicted 1 to appoint Nonindicted 3 as an employee of Nonindicted Company 2, and accordingly, Nonindicted 1 entered Nonindicted 3 as an employee of Nonindicted Company 9 and Nonindicted 2 from June 2, 2008 to March 2, 2009 and from April 2009 to July 7, 2009. Accordingly, Defendant 1 received total of KRW 29,383,160 from Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 2 for the benefit of Nonindicted 3 from June 2008 to July 2009.

As a result, Defendant 1 and 2 conspiredd to contribute political funds of KRW 29,383,160 in total from Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 9 in a manner that is not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

2. The receipt of illegal political funds from Nonindicted Co. 4

Defendant 1, around July 2008, used the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Steering-dong (hereinafter “○○○ Office”) (hereinafter “○○ Office”) as an office for the Defendant’s political activities, such as Nonindicted 13 forum, etc. However, Nonindicted 10, who was difficult to raise funds necessary for the operation of the office, had the representative director bear the necessary expenses for Nonindicted 4 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted 10”).

피고인 1은 2008. 8. 10.경 용인시 (이하 4 생략) 소재 ★★★CC에서 공소외 10에게 “여의도에 빈 사무실이 있다”는 등의 말을 하며 ○○○사무실의 비용을 부담하여 줄 것을 은근히 부탁하고 이에 공소외 10이 관심을 보이자 피고인 1의 보좌관 공소외 7과 상의하라고 말하고, 피고인 1의 지시를 받은 공소외 7은 공소외 4 주식회사에 ○○○사무실의 운영경비 등을 지급해 줄 것을 요구하여 공소외 4 주식회사로부터 공소외 4 주식회사 명의의 ♤♤♤ 통장( 계좌번호 3 생략)과 현금카드를 건네받아, 2008. 10. 6. 공소외 4 주식회사에서 위 ♤♤♤ 통장에 ○○○사무실 운영경비 명목으로 200만 원을 입금하자 이를 위 사무실 경비로 사용하는 등 그때부터 2009. 10. 20.까지 별지 범죄일람표 기재와 같이 총 21회에 걸쳐 공소외 4 주식회사로부터 위 사무실 운영경비, 위 사무실에서 근무하는 공소외 11의 월급, 월세 명목으로 합계 4,100만 원을 교부받았다.

As a result, Defendant 1 received a total of KRW 41 million from Nonindicted Co. 4 in a manner not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each of the witness Nonindicted 1, 7, and 39’s legal statements

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 1, 17, and 23

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 19 and 3

1. Each investigation report (including evidence Nos. 36, 40, 42, 53, 56, 60, 61, 80, 82, 104, 105, 118, 130, 131, and accompanying documents);

[Defendant 1]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 10 and 26, and part of the witness Nonindicted 7’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 10, 26, 28, and 40

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 41

1. Each investigation report (including evidence 12, 29, 65, 93, and accompanying documents);

1. The current status of the payment of Nonindicted 11’s allowance, annual salary status for each employee of Nonindicted 4 Co. 4, copy of the passbook Y (Account No. 3 omitted), Nonindicted 11’s confirmation on October 28, 2009, Nonindicted 11’s benefits and insurance documents, support regulations for research organizations of the National Assembly members, rules on the support for research organizations of the National Assembly members, rules on the support for research organizations of the National Assembly members in 208, guidance on the execution method of research activities of the research organizations

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (in the case of paragraph (1) at the time of sale, addition to Article 30 of the Criminal Act)

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment, and each of the fines shall be imposed on Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 2 and 3: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act

* Collection Amount: 158,383,160 won + + KRW 38 million + + KRW 29,383,160 + KRW 41 million)

1. The receipt of illegal political funds from Nonindicted 1 to KRW 50 million (Article 1(a) at the time of sale)

A. The assertion (Defendant 1, 3)

Defendant 3 received cash cards from Nonindicted 1, which had been containing KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 1. However, Defendant 1 did not call Nonindicted 1 to “a delivery of support payments to Defendant 3” and did not participate in the crime in the judgment that Defendant 3 was unaware of the fact that Defendant 3 received cash cards from Nonindicted 1. ② Defendant 3 requested Nonindicted 1 for the purpose of using Nonindicted 1 for the expenses of the organization of Nonindicted 6, which was the preparation for its establishment, and received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 1 and used them for personal purposes, such as the cost of establishing Nonindicted 6’s association. As such, Defendant 3 was not a political fund of KRW 5 million, but a criminal intent to receive and receive political funds from Defendant 3 is not a criminal intent.

(b) basic facts;

According to each evidence of the ruling, each of the following facts can be admitted:

(1) Relationship between Non-Indicted 1 and Defendant 1

○ Nonindicted Party 1, the father of Defendant 1, was on the part of Nonindicted Party 18 (at the time of military service), who was on the part of Defendant 1, was on the part of Nonindicted Party 18 (at the time of military service), was on the part of Nonindicted Party 18, who was on the part of Nonindicted Party 18, even after discharge. In recent years, Defendant 1’s mother was

○○ Nonindicted Party 1 did not frequently meet before 2007, but around January 2007, at the funeral hall of Nonindicted Party 18, Defendant 1 met frequently after Defendant 1 met, Defendant 1 was introduced, and Nonindicted Party 42, the owner of Nonindicted Company 2, from February 2008 to February 2008, was assigned as the business president of Nonindicted Party 2, and around February 2008, Defendant 1 was appointed as the vice-chairperson of the Seoul Metropolitan City Party of YUD.

(2) Relationship between Defendant 3 and Defendant 1

○ 피고인 3은 2004 ~ 2005년경 남편의 ⊙⊙⊙고 선배인 피고인 1을 알게 되고, 2006년경 □□□당 당원으로 등록한 이래, 2007년 대선에서 □□□당 서울시당 대외협력단장으로 활동하고, 2008년 초경부터 같은 해 10월경까지 □□□당 서울시당 부위원장을 하였고, 같은 해 3월경부터 10월경까지 서울시당 위원장인 피고인 1의 추천으로 □□□당 서울시당 여성위원장으로 활동하였고( 피고인 3 등의 진술에 의할 때 위 여성위원장은 과거 3선 여성 의원이 역임할 정도로 비중 있는 자리이다), 2008. 4. 총선 당시 서울시당 위원장인 피고인 1의 행사에 인원을 동원하고, 2008. 7. 최고위원 경선과 관련하여 경선준비 사무실에서 400 ~ 500명의 특보를 관리하는 특보단장으로 근무하였다.

○ Defendant 3: (a) prepared a letter of planning at the presidential election at the time of the presidential election; (b) planned election support activities against Nonindicted 8’s Defendant 1; (c) organized and reported information provided by special weather alerts; (d) sharing the roles of competition-related persons; (b) attended meetings related to the competition; and (c) reported the trends of representatives; (d) provided Defendant 1’s advice on image camera; and (e) mobilized of special weather alerts at the important local events of Defendant 1; and (e) requested Nonindicted 5 to pay accommodation expenses on behalf of Nonindicted 5.

Defendant 3 was active in the Presidential Transition Committee since the presidential election in 2007, and was planned to enter the next senior local government as the head of the local government.

(3) Particulars of issuance of post office cards

around February 25, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 opened the post office account in his name on the basis of a resolution to create a separate supporters’ association for Nonindicted Party 19 and Defendant 1, and to collect support money of KRW 5 million per capita and deliver it to Defendant 1. On February 25, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 received transfer of KRW 5 million from four, including Nonindicted Party 19, etc., and the sum of KRW 30 million from one’s own money, and opened the post office account in his name (not later than a supporters’ association).

○ On February 24, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 entered “Defendant 1 PM 6-7, ? 8:00 CARD” in his book, and entered “CARD” in the column of Multilock 26 February 26, 2008, and issued the cash card of the post office account in which Defendant 3 deposited KRW 50 million on May 2008.

On May 29, 2008, Defendant 3 entered the contents of the competition-related meetings in Defendant 1’s book that was used at the time of preparing the competition line for the highest committee members of Defendant 1, and entered “1. Cash Card (5453)-Woo-Woo-Woo ＋ activities” in Defendant 3’s book that was used at the time, and entered “7.30 E.Woo-Woo”) in the column of the same day.

(4) Details of withdrawal and use of post office cards

The details of Defendant 3’s withdrawal from the post office account in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to July 14, 2008, including the withdrawal of KRW 4 million from May 29, 2008 after having received the cash card from Nonindicted Party 1. The disbursement of KRW 4,30,000 from the post office deposit in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 was first made on May 31, 2008 (the disbursement of KRW 4,300,000 from the office deposit in the name of a bank in the name of Defendant 3 to the above office deposit in the name of Nonindicted Party 1; KRW 1,000,000 from the post office deposit in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to the above bank deposit in the name of Nonindicted Party 7, 2008; KRW 2,000,000,000 from the above office deposit in the name of Nonindicted Party 1; Defendant 3,000,000 won from the above office deposit in the name of the above post office deposit account; and Defendant 13,05.

On March 14, 2008, prior to the establishment of a cash card, Nonindicted 1 deposited KRW 4 million into an account in the name of Nonindicted 17 visa (Grade 9; hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 17”) in which Defendant 1 was in charge of accounting at the council room of Defendant 1, who was in charge of accounting.

B. Determination

(1) Whether Defendant 1 had Nonindicted Party 1 deliver the support payment to Defendant 3

The evidence directly consistent with this part of the facts charged is that Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's office and the statement in this court are concerned, and therefore, we examine whether Non-Indicted 1's statement is credibility.

(A) Details of Nonindicted 1’s statement

Pursuant to the first investigation of the prosecution, Nonindicted Party 1 stated to the effect that “Defendant 3 was asked with respect to the presidential election of the maximum member, and Defendant 1 did not speak to Defendant 1 member.” However, as seen earlier at the time of the second investigation, Nonindicted Party 1 presented the part recorded in Nonindicted Party 1’s book of February 24, 2008, and Defendant 1 stated that “I would like to make a false statement, and I would like to make a true statement on the card even if I would like to do so. I would like to say that I would like to make a false statement to Defendant 1’s member, and that I would like to make a statement to the effect that I would like to make a false statement to Defendant 1’s member, and that I would like to make a statement to the effect that I would like to make a false statement to Defendant 1’s member of the prosecution, and that I would like to make a contribution to Defendant 20,000 won to Defendant 1’s account with Defendant 20,000.”

In the fourth investigation conducted by the prosecution, Non-Indicted 1 stated that “The prosecutor asked Non-Indicted 1 to make a statement that Defendant 3 would have received the funding of Non-Indicted 6 incorporated association in preparation for its establishment?” The prosecutor stated that “I will not make a statement that Defendant 3 would have received the funding of Non-Indicted 6 incorporated association in preparation for its establishment? I would like to make a statement that Defendant 1 member would collect the funding, and then deliver the card to Defendant 3, and there is no reason to pay personal money to Defendant 3. There is no reason to pay any personal money to Defendant 3. There is no reason to pay any support funds that have been raised by several sponsors.” (No. 2597 pages of the Investigation Record No. 2597) and even in the course of a large examination conducted with Defendant 1, the prosecutor stated that “I would no longer make any false statement even after it was discovered that all the funds have been collected in the prosecutor’s office’s office.” (

○ Furthermore, Nonindicted 1 made a statement in this court as to the prosecutor’s question in the same manner as the prosecutor’s statement was made (However, as to the attorney’s question, “in the witness’s memory, Defendant 1 called Defendant 3 was the same as that of Defendant 3. When considering the situation, the person who was in the vicinity of the National Assembly was the same as Defendant 3-C. At the time, the talking that Defendant 1’s member made a correct speech is irrelevant to the fact that: (a) it is not clear whether Defendant 3 was the speech that Defendant 3 would make a speech; and (b) Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 3 did not specify Defendant 3 as Defendant 3.

(B) The credibility, etc. of Nonindicted Party 1’s statement

In full view of the above basic facts and the following circumstances, Nonindicted 1’s above statement is deemed to have been sufficiently reliable, and in full view of all the evidence corresponding thereto, Defendant 1 may sufficiently be recognized to have heard the fact that Nonindicted 1 collected support payments from Nonindicted 1 and delivered them to Defendant 3.

○ Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that it first corresponds to this part of the facts charged in the second investigation by the prosecution (based on the content of Nonindicted 1’s pocket book) is natural, and thereafter, continues to make consistent and specific statements to the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s examination in this court. In light of the aforementioned relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1, there is no particular circumstance for Nonindicted 1 to make a false statement in relation thereto.

○○ Nonindicted Party 1 stated at the time of the first investigation by the prosecution that he did not notify Defendant 1, that “I would like to provide Defendant 1 with support in connection with the presidential election after the election of the highest committee member,” and that “I would like to make a statement to Defendant 1 member at the time of the event that I would always be “I would like to make an audit if I would attend the place at the time of the event,” and that I would think I would like to read “I would like to say I would not speak at the time of the event. I would like to say I would like to read I would like to read I would like to read I would like to read “I would like to make an audit at the time of the event. I would like to say I would like to read I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would not to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would not to see.”

Although ○○ Nonindicted 1 made a statement more favorable to, or inconsistent with, Defendant 1 compared to the prosecutor’s statement after the examination in this court, it may be viewed as a statement considering some relation with Defendant 1 in light of Nonindicted 1’s legal attitude. Nevertheless, the gist of the testimony that Defendant 1 expressed his intention to deliver the support payment to Defendant 1 and that Defendant 1 delivered it to Defendant 3 is not significantly different.

Defendant 1 consistently recognized the part that Nonindicted Party 1 expressed his intention of support to Defendant 1 in the prosecutor’s office and in this court (Article 2802 of the Investigation Records, etc.). Defendant 1 stated that “In the process of replacement between Nonindicted Party 1 and the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted Party 1 expressed his intention to deliver support payments to the lower court.” The investigation records are 2864 pages.

Defendant 1’s official accountant in charge is the assistant officer of the supporters’ association office and Nonindicted 17 secretary’s office. However, considering Defendant 3’s career and work performed at the competition of the highest members, as seen in the above basic facts, Defendant 3 appears to have been partly involved in executing political funds separately from the official accountant in charge at the time of the presidential election of the highest members. However, there is sufficient probability that Defendant 1 would not have made Nonindicted 1 deliver the support fund to such Defendant 3.

○○ Nonindicted 1 stated that “The amount of KRW 50 million, which includes the money that Nonindicted 1 raised with Defendant 1’s support payment, was money to be delivered to Defendant 3 without Defendant 1’s instructions, and that Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 3 did not appear to have any economicly surplus” [ Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 3, who became aware of the fact that Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 3 were appointed to the Vice-Chairperson of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party and became aware of the fact that they became aware of at the time of receipt of the card, was limited to three months, and Defendant 3 also made a phone call with Nonindicted 1 at the prosecutor’s office about the relationship with Nonindicted 1. There was little fact that it was personally only. The degree of tea or meal was extremely high, as soon as possible at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City office, etc. (hereinafter “Investigation record”).

On March 14, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 deposited KRW 4 million with Nonindicted Party 1, 2008, Nonindicted Party 17 stated that “Non-Indicted Party 7 talks about Nonindicted Party 7’s assistant officer (except for Grade IV and Defendant 1’s member’s office; hereinafter “Non-Indicted Party 7”) due to lack of a flame value, and Non-Indicted Party 7 called Defendant 1 member to talk directly with Defendant 1 member and made a direct statement to Defendant 1 member. Since it appears to be that Non-Indicted Party 7 was made in money, it appears that Non-Indicted Party 1 entered money from Non-Indicted Party 1 (the Investigation Record No. 2067 pages), and even before Defendant 1 issued a cash card to Defendant 3, Defendant 1 appears to have been aware of this.”

(2) Whether the amount received by Defendant 3 from Nonindicted 1 is a political fund of Defendant 1, and whether Defendant 3 is a criminal offender

In full view of the above basic facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 3 received KRW 50 million from Nonindicted 1 as political funds of Defendant 1, and Defendant 3 received and delivered them as political funds of Defendant 1.

As to the reasons for providing funds to Defendant 1, Nonindicted Party 1: “In the prosecution, Nonindicted Party 1 tried to help Defendant 1 to appoint a vice-chairperson of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party, and introduced them to the president of Nonindicted Party 2 Co., Ltd., for the purpose of getting Defendant 1 to serve as the highest committee members of Defendant 1 (the first investigation and investigation records No. 1235 pages),” “I want to raise support funds to Defendant 1, and I want to raise support funds more than 1216 pages of investigation records”; “I want to raise support funds to Defendant 1; I am the highest committee members of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party; I am the highest committee members of the first committee who entered the office to be appointed as the vice-chairperson; and I am the highest committee members of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party 2; I am the statement that “I am to be able to do so, such as the highest committee members of the investigation records No. 2598); I am able to use it for the purpose of Defendant 1’s political funds.

○○ Nonindicted 1 made contact to Defendant 3 and delivered a post office cash card to Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 received the cash card without asking for the reasons giving it. Defendant 3 was planned to establish a non-profit welfare organization prior to receiving the cash card, but upon Nonindicted 1’s request to assist him, Nonindicted 1 expressed a dynamic book, and Nonindicted 1 stated that he was given a cash card to Defendant 3 without asking for any reasons. However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the said statement by Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 received the cash card without asking for any reason because he was aware that Nonindicted 1 was a cash card to Defendant 1’s instructions.

In other words, as seen earlier, Nonindicted 1 rejected Defendant 3’s assertion at the prosecution. However, Nonindicted 1, 3, and Nonindicted 2, 8,000, stated that the Nonindicted 3 did not appear to have been established at the time of Nonindicted 3’s entry into the above account by 0-6,000 won, and that Nonindicted 3 did not appear to have been recorded at the time of 8,000,000 won, and that Nonindicted 3’s statement was made at the time of 0-6,000,000 won, and that Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 3 were not to have been deposited at the account of 0-6,000,000 won. However, Nonindicted 1, 300,000 won, which was the first time after Nonindicted 3’s entry into the account of Nonindicted 3, 300,000 won, and that Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 3 were not to have been deposited at the account of 9,000,00 won.

Considering the contents of the pocket book used by Defendant 3 at the time of the competition, and the time when the cash card was started to be withdrawn from the cash account received from Nonindicted 1, Defendant 3 appears to have obtained the cash card in the name of “Nonindicted 1, 2009.” The name of the said card may be deemed to have been “expenses” as stated in the above pocket book, and if the cash card was received for disbursement of Nonindicted Incorporated 6, it would be deemed that there is no reason such as entering the above contents in the pocket book used at the time of the competition. Defendant 3 was aware of the amount deposited in the account at the time of the competition, etc. as funds for Defendant 1’s competition.

In light of the fact that part of the money that Defendant 3 withdrawn from the post office account in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 is money related to the Defendant’s political activities (e.g., competition office deposit, hotel event, etc.), and the remaining money withdrawal time is near the border line of the highest committee members ( July 3, 2008), and that the place where the money was withdrawn is very close to the border office, it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted Party 1 paid KRW 50 million for Defendant 1’s political activities, including the presidential committee for the highest committee members.

Defendant 3 asserted in this court that the above light boat office deposit amount of KRW 4.3 million was returned from Nonindicted 7 in cash and disbursed for Nonindicted 6’s association, and that it was transferred from Nonindicted 1’s post office account to Defendant 3’s bank account for the convenience of calculation. However, considering the following circumstances, the above down payment appears to have been settled from the cash account in the post office card in the name of Nonindicted 1, which Defendant 3 possessed after first transferring the money to his own money, and it does not seem to have been returned KRW 4.3 million in cash from Nonindicted 7.

In other words, Defendant 3 stated at the prosecutor’s office that “the above 4.3 million won was not returned from Defendant 1’s office” (the investigation record, etc.). ② After Defendant 3 paid the down payment to Defendant 3, the building owner transferred the entire amount of the deposit, including the down payment, to Defendant 1’s account in the name of Defendant 1 on July 10, 2008. The building owner appears to make the above statement in this court in order to make it unclear the location of the down payment that Defendant 3 paid in advance is unknown. ③ Nonindicted 7 also stated at the prosecutor’s office that “I know that Defendant 3 was aware of the settlement of the down payment with Defendant 3.” (In this court, he paid it to Defendant 3 in cash received from Defendant 1, in the prosecutor’s office, and made a statement that it was not memory or memory in the prosecutor’s office).

As long as Nonindicted 1 delivered money and valuables under the pretext of supporting Defendant 1’s political activities and received money through Defendant 3 with the knowledge of Defendant 1’s political activities, it is reasonable to deem that the illegality of political funds has already reached the point of acceptance and acceptance of political funds. Even if the prosecutor did not prove that the remainder of the money, other than the horse office deposit, △△△ hotel event expenses, etc., was used as political funds from Defendant 1, it is merely a circumstance related to the consumption method after the completion of the period, and it is not directly related to the sex of the crime (the circumstances that can be deemed that money was used as political funds are also used as political funds, as seen earlier).

○ Meanwhile, Defendant 3 asserted that 30 million won, out of the total amount of KRW 50 million received from Nonindicted 1, was used as a full-time loan. However, Defendant 3’s use of the deposit amount of KRW 150 million on May 20, 2008 and June 30, 2008 on the date of the balance payment, there are no objective data except for a full-time loan contract of KRW 150 million on June 30, 2008, and even if Defendant 3 was used as a full-time loan of Defendant 3 by home, this is merely a means of consumption after the completion of the loan, and it cannot be deemed that the nature of the

2. The receipt of illegal political funds from Nonindicted 1 to KRW 38 million (Article 1-b at the time of sale)

A. The assertion (Defendant 1, 2)

After Nonindicted 1 deposited KRW 30 million into the post office account on July 10, 2009, Defendant 1’s employees received the said post office cash card from Defendant 3 and withdrawn KRW 8 million deposited on November 12, 2008 and used it as Defendant 1’s political funds.

However, the above KRW 30 million, regardless of the Defendants’ demand, was deposited at will by Nonindicted 1; Nonindicted 7 requested the transfer of the support fund to Defendant 2 on or around the end of July 2008 or around the beginning of August, 2008 because there was no money in the support fund account; Defendant 2 reported it to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 called “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, which

Therefore, the above money is not a political fund of Defendant 1, but Defendant 1 was aware of the borrowed money, so there is no intention to commit a crime against Defendant 1.

(b) basic facts;

According to each evidence of the ruling, each of the following facts can be admitted:

Around July 1, 2008, Non-Indicted 1 transferred KRW 25 million to the account of the above post office cash card (the balance of the post office account before the remittance is about KRW 10 million), which was delivered to Defendant 3 on July 10, 2008, after collecting KRW 25 million with Defendant 1’s support payments ( KRW 1.6 million, KRW 1 million, KRW 30 million with KRW 10 million with KRW 10 million with KRW 10 million with KRW 10 million with KRW 3 million with KRW 5 million with the total amount of KRW 5 million with KRW 5 million with KRW 1.4 million with the above post office account. After the transfer, the balance of the post office account became approximately KRW 2.4 million with KRW 2 million with KRW 4 million with its address bank account.

On August 208, 2008, Non-Indicted 17 reported to Non-Indicted 7 the money deposited in Defendant 1’s political fund account. Non-Indicted 7 received the said post office account cash card from Non-Indicted 7, and then used the cash in a way of depositing it into Defendant 1’s political fund account.

On November 12, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 transferred KRW 8 million ( Nonindicted Party 19, 38, 43, and 2 million each) to the above post office account by the same method as that of November 12, 2008.

B. Determination

The evidence directly consistent with this part of the facts charged is that Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's office and the statement in this court are concerned, and therefore, we examine whether Non-Indicted 1's statement is credibility.

(1) Details of Nonindicted 1’s statement

As above, with regard to the process of additionally depositing KRW 38 million at the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted Party 1: (a) deposited money from Defendant 2 or Defendant 3 (in the first investigation, the statement that Nonindicted Party 3 appeared from Defendant 3, and the investigation record No. 1232) with a large amount of money; (b) sent money to Nonindicted Party 19 and Nonindicted Party 20 and collected the money to Defendant 1’s support money (the second investigation and investigation record No. 1520 pages); and (c) “Defendant 2 or Nonindicted Party 7 lent money to Defendant 1’s office and deposited KRW 8 million to Defendant 2 or Nonindicted Party 7 (the second investigation record No. 1521, No. 1232, Nov. 2, 2008; and (d) deposited KRW 300,000,000 to Defendant 48,000,000 won (the second investigation record and investigation record No. 1521, Jan. 1, 2008).

○○ Nonindicted Party 1 stated in this court that “There was almost no balance of passbooks, among the office staff, there was only one minute, or Defendant 3 or any minute, and collected money on the same basis as that of an extremely poor situation. 30 million won is the same (not more than 8 pages of the witness examination protocol): Provided, That there was a little difference between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 on the questions of the counsel after the question of the counsel. There was a timely statement that Defendant 3 would be used for the card, and that there was no lack of operating expenses that “I would like to take over the questions repeated by the prosecutor and his defense counsel after the statement (the 39th page of the above protocol).” Defendant 2 did not lend to Defendant 2, “(the 61st page of the above protocol),” and “I would not think that I would not lend KRW 30 million to Defendant 30 million.”

(2) The credibility, etc. of Non-Indicted 1’s statement

In full view of the above facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above statement by Nonindicted Party 1 was sufficiently reliable, and in full view of all the evidence corresponding thereto, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted Party 1 was also Defendant 1’s political fund and Defendant 1 also knew of it as his own political fund.

○○ Nonindicted Party 1 consistently stated that the prosecutor’s office and this court consistently supported Defendant 1’s request, and there is no particular circumstance to make a false statement in light of the relationship between Nonindicted Party 1 and Defendant 1 as seen earlier, and in this court, some of Defendant 1 made a statement favorable to Defendant 1. However, the overall purport of the testimony is not to be lent.

All of the KRW 30 million and KRW 8 million paid by Nonindicted Party 1 include a considerable portion of the support payment that Nonindicted Party 1 raised through the Vice-Chairperson, etc. of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party, like the KRW 50 million that he paid through Defendant 3. However, it is difficult to readily obtain that Nonindicted Party 1 lent such money without delivering it as a support payment.

Defendant 2 did not prepare a loan certificate with Nonindicted Party 1 at the time, and there is no fact that the interest or the repayment period was agreed.

Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 would receive KRW 38 million in cash from Defendant 1’s wife and return it to Nonindicted 1 on January 12, 2009, according to Defendant 1’s order that he would have repaid KRW 38 million in cash from Nonindicted 1, and that he would have repaid the above money later if he again borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from Defendant 1’s wife, and that he would have repaid it later. Nonindicted 1 would have borrowed the money and used the money to obtain the remainder of KRW 18,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won. However, considering the following circumstances, Defendant 2’s above statement cannot be trusted.

즉, ① 공소외 1은 이와 관련 검찰에서 “ 피고인 1 의원 부친 기일에 피고인 2로부터 현금으로 3,800만 원을 받거나, 그 중 2,000만 원을 피고인 2에게 빌려 준 사실이 전혀 없다.”(수사기록 2600쪽, 제4회 조사)고 진술하고, 피고인 1과의 대질과정에서도 ” 피고인 2로부터 3,800만 원을 돌려받은 사실이 없다. 다만, 피고인 2가 하는 말이 저에게 빌렸다고 하면서 나중에 정리하자고 하였다. 하지만 저는 피고인 2에게 우리가 뭘 빌리냐고 하면서 나중에 정리하자고 하였다“고 진술하였고(수사기록 제2863쪽), 이 법정에서도 유사한 취지로 진술하고 있다. ② 피고인 2는 이와 관련하여 검찰에서 ”제가 피고인 1의 부친 기일에 공소외 1에게 ‘3800만 원 중 2,000만 원을 빌려달라’고 하였더니 공소외 1이 ‘좋다’고 하여 제 차 트렁크에 있는 현금 3,800만 원 중 1,800만 원을 쇼핑백에 담아 공소외 1에게 주었다“고 진술하였으나(수사기록 제2344쪽), 이후 피의자신문시 및 이 법정에서는 ” 공소외 1이 ‘2천만 원은 내가 빌려주는 것으로 하고, 나머지 1,800만 원은 홍보좌관님이 알아서 사용하십시오’라고 하였다. 공소외 1에게 1,800만 원이 들어 있는 쇼핑백을 주자, 저에게 다시 돌려 주었다“고 진술하고 있는바(수사기록 제2988쪽 등), 1,800만 원을 공소외 1에게 주었는데 돌려주었다는 부분은 쉽게 착오할 수 없을 것으로 보이는데, 이에 대하여 진술이 번복되고 있다. ③ 피고인 2는 ” 공소외 1로부터 되돌려받은 3,800만 원을 차량유지비, 카드대금 등으로 사용하였다. 당시 급하게 쓸 곳이 있었던 것은 아니다“고 진술하고 있으나, 급하게 필요한 것도 아닌데, 피고인 1의 지시로 갚겠다고 한 금원을 차량유지비 등에 사용하기 위하여 다시 차용한다는 것은 쉽게 믿기 어렵다.

From July 10, 2008, the Defendants: (a) around July 10, 2008, deposited in Defendant 1’s political fund account; (b) KRW 18,00,000 in the presidential election account; (c) around July 14, 2008, Defendant 1’s political funds were scheduled to enter KRW 4,214,00 in the presidential election account; and (d) at around July 10, 2008, Defendant 1’s political funds were not entirely insufficient; (b) KRW 30,000 deposited in Nonindicted 1’s discretion; and (c) Defendant 2, upon gathering the cash card possessed by Defendant 3, lent KRW 30,00 to Nonindicted 1; (d) the time when Nonindicted 1 requested the payment from Nonindicted 1 on July 14, 2008; (e) the time when Nonindicted 2 requested the payment from Nonindicted 1 on July 18, 2008; (e) the time when the request was made to Defendant 1 on July 18, 2008.

In other words, as seen earlier, Nonindicted Party 1 consistently stated that: (a) collected support money and deposited KRW 30 million at Defendant 1’s request; (b) there was no demand from Defendant 1; and (c) Nonindicted Party 1 made an additional deposit of KRW 30 million to Defendant 3; (b) as seen earlier, in light of the relationship between Defendant 3 and Nonindicted Party 1, it appears that there was no reasonable reason or motive for Nonindicted Party 1 collected support money from Defendant 1 to Defendant 3 without compensation; (c) Nonindicted Party 2 again requested Nonindicted Party 1 to borrow money from Defendant 30 million won upon Defendant 2’s request; and (d) Nonindicted Party 1 reported it to Nonindicted Party 1 to Defendant 3,000 KRW 38,000,000,000,000 to Defendant 1’s KRW 38,000,000,000,000 to Nonindicted Party 1’s KRW 30,000,000.

The Defendants reported that Defendant 2’s lack of political funds, such as support payments, to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 said that Defendant 1 was “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Unlike at the time of Defendant 3’s use of a cash card, the Defendants asserted that, since July 10, 2008, Defendant 1’s withdrawal of this in cash at Defendant 1’s side and deposited and used most of the political fund accounts. However, at the time of Defendant 3’s use, Defendant 3 was received and used as the activity expense of Defendant 3 required in connection with the competition, and Defendant 3 used part of it for the settlement of the competition cost, etc. (around July 10, 2008, when Defendant 3 transferred from the above post office account to its own bank account from July 10, 2008, KRW 10 million additionally deposited, which is part of the above KRW 30 million additionally deposited, and it appears that Defendant 3 also used the additional deposit of KRW 30 million to the above account, and thus, Defendant 1’s other employees did not use the cash account from the above post office account and did not use it differently.

3. The receipt of illegal political funds from Nonindicted Co. 2, etc. (Article 1(c) at the time of sale)

A. The assertion (Defendant 1, 2)

Although it was true that Nonindicted 3 received benefits from Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., but it was paid to Nonindicted Co. 3, who was employed as a volunteer at the time of the presidential election, as Defendant 2’s introduction, he was employed by Nonindicted Co. 2, and received benefits from Nonindicted Co. 3, who was merely engaged in driving, etc. for Nonindicted Co. 8 with Nonindicted Co. 1’s consideration, and the receiving entity is merely 8, and thus, the said benefits cannot be viewed as Defendant 1’s political fund. ② Defendant 1 did not have any criminal intent to receive or receive political funds, since he was unaware of the fact that Nonindicted

(b) basic facts;

According to each evidence of the ruling, each of the following facts can be admitted:

○ Nonindicted 3 received an introduction from Nonindicted 21 on board, and conducted an interview from Defendant 2 from October 2007 to July 2009, the interview mainly took place as Nonindicted 8’s performance cost, such as driving, etc. from October 2007 to July 2009. From November 2007 to June 2008, Nonindicted 3 received KRW 1.8 million monthly cash from Defendant 2.

○○ Nonindicted 3 was not a four-party insurance, and it was difficult for Defendant 2 to do so, and Defendant 2 talked with Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1 paid KRW 29,383,160 in total, of Nonindicted 3’s salary from June 2008 to July 2009, when Nonindicted 3 was involved in a disaster involving Nonindicted 2, etc. as an employee of Nonindicted Company 3, and Nonindicted 1 was paid from June 2008 to July 209.

In June 11, 2008, Non-Indicted 1 stated that “public/employee, Non-Indicted 22 division (documents), and 200 as of the end of each month” in his column of Dialian on June 11, 2008.

○ 공소외 3은 공소외 8을 수행하여 2007년 대선, 2008년 총선, 2008년 최고위원 경선과 관련하여 각종 행사, 바자회, 유세현장, 지역구 방문(노인정, 복지관 등)을 하였는데, 대선 때는 □□□당에서 잡힌 일정대로 공소외 8을 수행하여 □□□당 후보에 대한 선거유세를 하였고, 총선 때는 공소외 8을 수행하여 피고인 2와 함께 피고인 1의 지역구인 서울 ◆◆◆을 지역에서 선거유세를 하러 다녔으며, 경선 때는 공소외 8, 피고인 2가 전국을 돌며 대의원들에게 선거유세를 할 때 운전을 하였다.

Defendant 2 reported to Defendant 1 the schedule of Nonindicted 8’s election tax and the result of Nonindicted 8’s election tax, and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 in relation to Nonindicted 8’s election tax.

In the event of Non-Indicted 3’s failure to perform Non-Indicted 8, Non-Indicted 3 entered the office of the supporters’ association and made a call or cleaning. There is a string attendance at the meeting of the members of the supporters’ association and the employees of the supporters’ association organized by Defendant 1, and Defendant 1’s driver 1 performed Defendant 1 on the easy day and entered the golf course, etc. between them.

around July 2009, Non-Indicted 3 only worked for Non-Indicted 8's performance statement, etc., and around that time, Non-Indicted 3 also retired from office.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the benefits of Nonindicted 3 paid by Nonindicted Co. 2, Ltd. are political funds of Defendant 1

In full view of the above basic facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the salaries of Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 3 paid by Nonindicted 2 Co. 3 was money provided for Defendant 1’s political activities by paying the monthly salary of Nonindicted 3 working in the office of the supporters’ association of Defendant 1, which constitutes Defendant 1’s political funds.

As to the process in which Nonindicted Co. 2 paid Nonindicted Co. 3’s benefits in Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., Nonindicted Co. 1, in the prosecutor’s office, Nonindicted Co. 2: “Around May 2008, Nonindicted Co. 2 extracted articles from a low-class office; Defendant 2, who was not a regular employee, did not pay the 4th insurance; thus, he left the 4th unit insurance.” Nonindicted Co. 3’s registration as an employee of our company, and Nonindicted Co. 3’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 3 continued to make an investigation into the 4th unit insurance and pay for the 4th unit insurance and pay for the 4th unit insurance.” The above contents indicated in Nonindicted Co. 3’s column on Jun. 11, 2008 are related to the list of employees of Nonindicted Co. 3. As Nonindicted Co. 3 appears in the highest period for the 10th executive officer, Nonindicted Co. 3’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 3’s office was in need not be registered as an investigation. 37.

○○ Nonindicted 3 also entered in a written statement that “Defendant 2 was not a four-party insurance policy, and it was inconvenient for Defendant 2 to create the affiliation of Nonindicted Co. 2, and the Nonindicted Co. 2 paid benefits to Nonindicted Co. 3. It should not be deemed that Defendant 2 asked Nonindicted Co. 1 to do so (hereinafter referred to as “Investigation Records”).” (The Investigation Records No. 2322).

Defendant 2 stated that “No. 1 is an employee working at the supporters’ association office, and currently the privately placed local government pays wages to Nonindicted 1. However, it is difficult to believe in light of the aforementioned statements made by Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3.” (Article 2979 of the Investigation Records, etc.). However, Defendant 2 stated that “No. 3 is employed by the employees who gather the privately placed local government’s four insurances, and Nonindicted 1 is employed by our company.” However, it is difficult to believe in light of the aforementioned statements made by Nonindicted 3.

Defendant 2 stated in the prosecutorial office and this court that “ Nonindicted Co. 1 sent Nonindicted Co. 2 to Nonindicted Co. 3 because of the degree of his employee being open to the public.” However, in light of the following statements made by Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted 3, it is difficult to believe that the above statement made by Defendant 2 was made, and Nonindicted Co. 3 appears to have been made only on the part of Defendant 1, not on the demand by Nonindicted Co. 1, but on the part of Defendant 1.

In other words, in the prosecution, ① Defendant 2 retired from the operation of Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 1 sent Nonindicted Co. 3 to Nonindicted Co. 3, and Nonindicted Co. 3 was asked to resign from the operation of Nonindicted Co. 3 (the investigation record No. 1513 and No. 2). ② Nonindicted Co. 3 unilaterally retired from the operation of Nonindicted Co. 21. In recent years, Nonindicted Co. 21 called “Nonindicted Co. 21,” and Nonindicted Co. 2 stated “In the written statement, Nonindicted Co. 1 and Defendant 2 stated in the investigative agency’s statement” (On the other hand, Nonindicted Co. 3 was working in Nonindicted Co. 2 for one week prior to the retirement of Nonindicted Co. 2, but it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Co. 3 was working in the said non-Indicted Co. 2 for one week prior to the retirement of Nonindicted Co. 3, etc., in light of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 2 and Nonindicted Co. 2 made a statement for resignation for one week.

Considering the above circumstances in which Nonindicted 3’s payment of benefits, Nonindicted 3’s reason for resignation, Nonindicted 1’s statement to the effect that Nonindicted 3 is “Defendant 1’s employee” (the part on “public official/employee”), Nonindicted 1, who was aware of Nonindicted 3’s first payment of benefits at the time of Nonindicted 3’s payment, was permitted by Nonindicted 1’s employee at the time of the first payment of benefits to Nonindicted 3’s office, and later, he was aware of Defendant 1’s wife’s vehicle driving, and Defendant 2’s aforementioned prosecutor’s statement was that Nonindicted 3, even upon Defendant 2’s above prosecutor’s statement, was an employee of Defendant 1 working at the supporters’ association office, and that Nonindicted 3 paid Nonindicted 3’s monthly wages to Nonindicted 2, etc.

The Defendants asserted that Nonindicted 3 was Nonindicted 8’s personal driving engineer who is irrelevant to Defendant 1, and therefore, the person who received Nonindicted 3’s salary is Nonindicted 8. However, considering the duties in charge and the roles of Nonindicted 8 as seen in the above basic facts, it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted 3 was employed by Defendant 1’s supporters’ association office and aided Defendant 1 to perform Nonindicted 8’s political activities and operated the vehicle mainly. As such, it is reasonable to see that the receiving body was Defendant 1 [only Grade 23(7; hereinafter “Nonindicted 23”) working as secretary at the council room of Defendant 1, it is reasonable to see that the receiving body was Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 3 did not make a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that it was difficult for Nonindicted 3 to make a statement at the prosecutor’s office, but it is also difficult for Nonindicted 3 to make a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that it was Defendant 27 days in light of the fact that Nonindicted 8 made a statement at the prosecutor’s association.

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendants asserted that Nonindicted 3 was a volunteer; (b) Nonindicted 3 appears to be not a political partner; and (c) Nonindicted 3 was paid monthly salary to Nonindicted 3 even before the payment of salary from Nonindicted 2 Co. 3’s side (the Defendants stated that Defendant 2 received payment from Nonindicted 8; (c) Nonindicted 3 was stated that the source was received from Defendant 2; and (d) Nonindicted 8 was not the objective data that Nonindicted 8); (c) the presidential election of 2007 and the presidential election of 2008 and the presidential election of 2008 for the highest commissioner for the year 208, Nonindicted 3 was working for more than one year after July 2008, deeming Nonindicted 3 as mere volunteer is inconsistent with the doctrine of private interest.

○○ As alleged in the Defendants’ domestic affairs, Nonindicted Co. 2 did not pay Nonindicted Co. 3’s salary, but did not pay Nonindicted Co. 3’s salary, Nonindicted Co. 1 hired Nonindicted Co. 3 to work for Nonindicted Co. 2, and considered Nonindicted Co. 3 to work at the supporters’ association office, Nonindicted Co. 3 did not work for Nonindicted Co. 2’s business during that period, and carried out Nonindicted Co. 8’s business to assist Defendant 1’s political activities at the supporters’ association office. During that period, Defendant 1 received free of charge the services provided by Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., and eventually received the amount of expenses equivalent to the services provided by Nonindicted Co. 3 (the amount corresponding to Nonindicted Co. 3’s monthly salary) from Nonindicted Co. 2.

(2) Whether Defendant 1’s criminal intent

In full view of the above basic facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 was aware that Nonindicted 3 was receiving benefits from Nonindicted Company 2, etc. while working for Defendant 1’s supporters’ association office rather than mere volunteers. Therefore, the criminal intent for the illegal receipt of political funds is recognized.

○ Nonindicted Party 1 stated at the prosecution that “I did not talk with Defendant 1 member, but Defendant 1 told Defendant 1 member of the National Assembly to “Is the Republic of Korea, Is the Republic of Korea,” “Is the Republic of Korea, Is the Republic of Korea,” “Is the Republic of Korea, Is the Republic of Korea,” and “Is the Republic of Korea, Is the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea,

Defendant 1 was aware that Nonindicted 3 driven by Nonindicted 8 in the course of driving Nonindicted 3, and even according to Defendant 1’s prosecutor’s statement (the Investigation Record No. 2816 pages), Defendant 2 stated that Nonindicted 8 gave his monthly salary to Nonindicted 3, although he did not make a report to Defendant 1, Defendant 2 reported to Nonindicted 8. Even according to the above statement, Defendant 1 appears to have been aware of the circumstances that Nonindicted 8, who was his wife, did not make a monthly salary and gave his monthly salary to Nonindicted 2 corporation, were known through Nonindicted 8 (in consideration of the relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1, it is difficult to believe Defendant 2’s statement that only reported to Nonindicted 8 when considering the relationship between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1).

As seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) Nonindicted 3 was well aware that he carried out Defendant 1; (b) Nonindicted 3 was present at the meeting of Defendant 1’s employees; (c) Nonindicted 3 was carrying out Nonindicted 8 for a period of two years; and (d) he was at the time in the oil site for Defendant 1; and (c) Nonindicted 8 was aware of the fact that Nonindicted 8 was giving monthly salary even according to Defendant 1’s statement, Defendant 1 also seems to have not considered Nonindicted 3 as a mere volunteer.

4. The receipt of illegal political funds from Nonindicted Co. 4 (Article 2)

A. The assertion (Defendant 1)

It is true that Nonindicted Co. 4 paid the monthly salary of Nonindicted Co. 11, working at the ○○○○○ Office’s operating expenses, monthly rent, and its offices listed in the attached list of crimes.

However, the office of ○○○○ is not the personal office of Defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” in this paragraph), but the office of Nonindicted Co. 12, as the office of Nonindicted Co. 12, when Nonindicted Co. 4 paid the deposit money, and was jointly used with Nonindicted Co. 12, while paying operating expenses, monthly salary, monthly salary, etc., and Nonindicted Co. 4 did not contribute monthly rent. ② Even if Nonindicted Co. 4 contributed operating expenses, it is not the subject of support, but the subject of support is Nonindicted Co. 12, an incorporated association (or Nonindicted Co. 13 for the sake of), and a kind of support. As such, the operating expenses, etc. paid by Nonindicted Co. 4 cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s political funds. ③ The Defendant did not demand operating expenses, etc. to Nonindicted Co. 4, and did not know that Nonindicted Co. 4 paid operating expenses, etc. for the Defendant’s political activities. Therefore, there is no intention to receive political funds

(b) basic facts;

According to each evidence of the ruling, each of the following facts can be admitted:

(1) Establishment of a forum for Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 and Nonindicted Incorporated Association 13 and acquisition of ○○○ Office

around 2004, Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 was a research organization that made up of 35 members of the 17th Magsung Party. Around April 2007, the establishment registration of an incorporated association was completed, the Defendant served as a primary joint representative and currently is a director of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12. Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 has two joint representatives, one member of the National Assembly, one of the secretary-general, and one deputy secretary-general, and all of the duties performed by the deputy secretary-general.

○○○ Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 used the ○○○ Office from the time of its establishment (a security deposit of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.4 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and KRW 5000,000, respectively, and KRW 300,000,000 for the general members of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12, were collected by account transfer, and appropriated personnel expenses and operating expenses for the said money. However, after the presidential election on December 2, 2007, the account transfer was suspended from January 2008, and Nonindicted 28 served as the Deputy Secretary-General of ○○○ Office from February 2007 to July 2008.

On June 17, 2008, the Defendant made 22 members of the National Assembly, and registered the National Assembly with Nonindicted 13 Forum, and was the representative member of Nonindicted 13 Forum. Nonindicted 13 Forum was held at the office of ○○○ on July 25, 2008, August 1, 200, and September 22, 2008, respectively (the Defendant was prepared at the office of ○○○ prior to the lease of the competition office at the time of preparation for the presidential election of the highest committee members).

around July 2008, Nonindicted 7 requested Nonindicted 28, who was appointed as an auditor of Nonindicted 54 Corporation, to use the ○○○○ Office as Nonindicted 13 Forum Office. Nonindicted 28 consented, and Nonindicted 12’s remaining membership fees of the members of Nonindicted 12 Association, were transferred to Nonindicted 12 Association in the name of the head of the Tong, and the amount of KRW 9 million was transferred to Nonindicted 12 Association operating expenses of the office. Nonindicted 7 transferred the ○○ Office to Nonindicted 7, while Nonindicted 12 Association’s seal impression, joint representative official seal, and documents related to Nonindicted Association 12.

(2) Determination on the payment of operating expenses of Nonindicted Co. 4’s ○○○ Office

○○ Nonindicted 10 was friendly between the Defendant’s female life and the Defendant’s birth, and around September 2007, the Defendant was first aware of the Defendant, and the Defendant was able to do so, such as drinking with golf.

○ 공소외 10은 2008. 8. 10. 피고인과 ★★★CC 골프장에서 골프를 쳤고, 이후 공소외 10의 지시를 받은 공소외 4 주식회사의 본부장 공소외 26이 2008. 9.경 공소외 7과 통화한 이후 공소외 4 주식회사는 월 100만 원의 ○○○사무실의 운영비를 부담하기로 하였고, 별도의 면접을 보지 않고 공소외 11을 2008. 9. 17. 공소외 4 주식회사의 직원으로 등재하였다.

(3) Non-Indicted 11

Before being registered as an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, at around 2006, Nonindicted Co. 11 reported an interview at the Gyeonggi-do Party Magsung Party, and entered the next-generation Women’s Chairperson. On October 2007, Nonindicted Co. 11 transferred the company to the outside cooperation head of the election countermeasure headquarters for the Seoul Metropolitan Government Party, the chairman of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Party was first known, Defendant 2, the chairman of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Party, was first known, and when he was elected, the Defendant was in charge of the organization of women by moving to the Defendant’s camping at the time of the highest election of the members of the Mag City Party.

○ 공소외 11은 공소외 4 주식회사의 직원으로 등재된 이후에는 ○○○사무실에서 혼자 상근으로 근무하고 사무실 운영비를 관리하면서 공소외 4 주식회사에서 제공하는 운영비와 관련하여 공소외 26과 통화를 한 사실이 있을 뿐, 공소외 4 주식회사의 사무실에서는 근무하지 않았으며 공소외 4 주식회사의 고유 업무와 관련하여 보고를 하거나 결재를 받은 적은 없고, 공소외 13 포럼 및 공소외 14 위원회의 사무, 피고인의 홈페이지 관리 등의 업무를 하였다. 공소외 11이 공소외 17에게 ○○○사무실 운영과 관련된 경비가 필요하다고 할 경우 공소외 17은 피고인의 정치자금 계좌에서 공소외 11 명의 계좌로 송금하여 주기도 하였다. 또한 공소외 11은 2009. 4. 10. 공소외 13 포럼의 간사자격으로 공소외 14 위원회와 공소외 13 포럼, 공소외 44 연구회가 공동으로 개최한 ‘ ▼▼▼토론회’에 참석하였다( 공소외 4 주식회사 측은 공소외 11이 위 토론회에 참석한 사실을 몰랐다).

around June 2009, Nonindicted 11 posted Nonindicted 15’s secretary (class V and Defendant’s member shop; hereinafter “Nonindicted 15”) who was retired from office due to the extinguishment with employees around that time at the Defendant’s meeting place, etc., and did not work more at the Defendant’s office on the ground that Defendant 2 was released from office and Defendant 2 was retired from office.

Before Non-Indicted 11 begins to work at the ○○○ Office, Non-Indicted 7 called “Non-Indicted 11’s “a person who is an employee of Non-Indicted 4 Company”; Defendant 3 and Non-Indicted 30, the Secretary of Non-Indicted 14 Committee, around October 2009, received a written confirmation that Non-Indicted 11 was employed as an employee of Non-Indicted 4 Company after Non-Indicted 11’s report on the large payment of operating expenses of the ○○○ Office (However, the said confirmation was also made as an executive secretary of Non-Indicted 13 Forum. Non-Indicted 13’s staff stated that he instructed Non-Indicted 13 for a crisis management forum).

(4) Payment of operating expenses of Nonindicted Co. 4

around October 208, Non-Indicted 26 opened a Dokbook (Account No. 3 omitted) in the name of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 4, and sent the passbook and cash card to the Defendant’s Council room. Non-Indicted 7 received it and delivered it to Non-Indicted 11 (Non-Indicted 7 also delivered the passbook in the name of Non-Indicted 12, which was taken over from Non-Indicted 28). Non-Indicted 26 deposited KRW 2 million in the above Dok Account as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment by October 209, including the deposit of KRW 2 million in the name of the operating expenses of the above Dok Account, and Non-Indicted 11 made a withdrawal of money from the above account and made a deposit of KRW 100,000 in the account of Non-Indicted 11’s account No. 2108, Feb. 1, 2008. In addition, Non-Indicted 26 made a deposit of KRW 200,000.

After October 2008, Nonindicted Co. 4 did not use the ○○○ office, and the ○○ office was used in Nonindicted Co. 13 for the forum and the meetings related to Nonindicted Co. 14 for the committee. The National Assembly members belonging to Nonindicted Co. 12 visited the ○○ office, but did not attend the meetings related to Nonindicted Co. 12, but Defendant 3 prepared an interpellation with the Defendant at the time of the inspection of the state administration in 2008. The Defendant visited the ○○ office only once every two weeks after October 2008 (see Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement).

○○ Nonindicted Co. 26 decided to bear the operating expenses of the ○○○○○ Office, and visited the ○○ Office at the beginning of October 2008, which was after Nonindicted Co. 4 registered Nonindicted Co. 11 as an employee. Nonindicted Co. 10 first visited the ○○ Office around November 2008.

around December 208, 2008, Nonindicted 7, who was in the office of ○○○○○, was detached of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12, attached Nonindicted 13’s spores to Nonindicted 13’s spores. The documents of Nonindicted 13’s forum prepared in 2009, are recorded as Nonindicted 13’s office (it includes the contents that ○○’s office will make an spores in every week’s spores from February 13, 2009). At the entrance of the office of ○○○○, Nonindicted 4’s spores were additionally attached around April 2009.

○○ Nonindicted Co. 4 began to bear the rent for the office of ○○○, including from April 22, 2009 to February 2, 2009, and from March 2, 2009. On April 22, 2009, KRW 2.8 million and KRW 3 million in the name of office operating expenses were deposited at KRW 5.8 million per month from May 2009 to October 2009, and deposited KRW 3 million per month (the sum of KRW 1.65 million in the monthly rent raised and office operating expenses at that time).

Around May 2009, Nonindicted Co. 4 prepared and affixed a contract with Nonindicted Co. 7 on December 23, 2008, stating that “○○○○ Office from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 201,” “The joint use of Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 12 by Nonindicted Co. 4” (the deposit is borne by Nonindicted Co. 12; Nonindicted Co. 4 bears the rent and the management expenses).

○○○○○○○ Office only twice in the Defendant, and Nonindicted Co. 4 participated in Nonindicted Co. 13 for a forum held at the end of April 2009, on the beginning of 2009, at the ○○ Office, Nonindicted Co. 10: (a) displayed the video of the Defendant with regard to the substance of the character developed by Nonindicted Co. 4 in the ○○ Office; and (b) around April 2009, at the ○○ Office, Nonindicted Co. 4 participated in a forum related to the Autopy, which was held by the National Assembly on the end of April 2009.

Around October 2009, Nonindicted Co. 7 sent a press response document to the vice president of Nonindicted Co. 4, 25, and 26. The document contains the following contents: “The Nonindicted Co. 4 was responsible for monthly rent and management expenses under a joint use agreement with Nonindicted Co. 4 for the need of Nonindicted Co. 4 (Interim omission) (the intermediate omission) (the intermediate omission) and the employees of the joint office (the employee is the employee of Nonindicted Co. 4 and the employee of Nonindicted Co. 13 forum research secretary).”

B. Determination

(1) Whether the operating expenses paid by Nonindicted Co. 4 constitute a price for joint use

In full view of the above basic facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted Co. 4 did not regard the ○○ Office as having jointly used the ○○ Office with Nonindicted Co. 12, and that KRW 41 million, including operating expenses, was donated free of charge (the subject of the donation is the Defendant as seen in the following (2)).

(A) As to the process of acquiring the ○○○ Office from Nonindicted 28

At the time of January 208, 2008, Nonindicted 28 stated in the prosecutor’s office that “The political end-up function of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 from around January 2007 to around January 2008 was de facto lost, and was leading to the connection with the name of the incorporated association.” As for the reasons for permitting the use of the ○○○○○○ Office, Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 had already been honest, and at that time, Nonindicted 46 had the discretion to decide on the operation of the ○○○○○○ Office as well as the deputy secretary, because Nonindicted 12’s office director was also at the time of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12’s business. Under this circumstance, Defendant 12, a major member of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12, expressed his intention to use the above ○○○ Office in the name of Defendant 1, a member of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12, and made a statement to Nonindicted Incorporated Association 206, which was well managed by Nonindicted Incorporated Corporation 54 and 504.”

At the time only one month has passed since the establishment of the ○○○ Forum 13, Nonindicted 7 did not appear to have requested Nonindicted 12’s major members of Nonindicted 12’s association to hand over the ○○○○○○ Office without the direction of the Defendant, the representative of Nonindicted 13 Forum. Accordingly, Nonindicted 7 stated in this court that “Before that, Nonindicted 13 Forum, the Do governor of the Do governor of the Do governor of the Act on Maritime Affairs, the Do governor stated that “The Do governor of the Do governor of the Act on Maritime Affairs, even though he did not say that the office was used in Nonindicted 13 Forum, he could have gotten off.”

In light of the above circumstances of acquisition, although the office of ○○○○ was the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 in relation to the owner at the time of July 2008 and thereafter thereafter, the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 was actually managed by the Defendant or Nonindicted Incorporated Association 13 for the purpose of practical management. The Defendant’s side did not seem to have obtained the consent of the members of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 13 for the course of acquiring the office or paying the expenses of the office fee when the deposit was fully deducted from the deposit that was transferred by Nonindicted Incorporated Association 12 (at that time, the membership transfer of the members was suspended), the Defendant’s office’s operating expenses, rent, and personnel expenses should be borne at the expense of the Defendant or Nonindicted Incorporated Association 13 for the sake that the Defendant’s side fails to pay the rent, etc., and it appears that the owner’s office should be handed over. Meanwhile, there is no circumstance that the Defendant obtained the consent of the members of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 13 for the course of acquiring the office.

(B) Details of the first conversation between the Defendant and Nonindicted 10’s office and Nonindicted 10

○ 피고인과 공소외 10은 2008. 8. 10. ★★★CC 골프장에서 ○○○사무실과 관련하여 처음 대화를 하였는데, 그 경위에 대하여, 공소외 10은 검찰에서 “ 피고인 1 의원이 제 옆자리에 와서, ‘여의도 오피스텔에 비어 있는 사무실이 있다’고 이야기해서 제가 농담삼아 ‘ 공소외 4 주식회사가 같이 쓰겠다’고 했더니 피고인 1 의원이 ‘ 공소외 7에게 전화해서 알아봐라’고 하였다. 저로서는 사무실과 관련하여 어떤 지원이나 도움을 바라는 듯한 의미로 받아들였다”(수사기록 제1422쪽, 제3회 조사), “2008. 8. 10. ★★★CC 골프장에서 피고인 1 의원이 저에게 지나가는 말로 ‘여의도에 빈 오피스텔이 있다.’라는 이야기를 하면서 구체적으로 저에게 어떤 요구를 하지는 않았지만 저는 내심 대화의 뉘앙스 상 여의도 사무실과 관련하여 저에게 어떤 지원이나 도움을 바라는 것 같다는 생각을 해서 피고인 1 의원이 말해 준 대로 공소외 4 주식회사 공소외 26 본부장으로 하여금 공소외 7과 연락하여 실무 처리를 하도록 지시했다. 당시 저는 피고인 1 의원에게 어떤 지원이나 도움을 줄 경우 이후에 공소외 4 주식회사와 관련하여 피고인 1 의원에게 어떠한 부탁을 할 수도 있을 것이라는 막연한 기대감이 있었다”(수사기록 제2525쪽, 제4회 조사)고 진술하였다(다만, 공소외 10은 이 법정에서는 “ 피고인 1 의원이 같이 골프를 친 공소외 27에게 그런 취지의 말을 한 것 같은데, 저희 회사는 서울 서부지역에 사무실이 필요해서 같이 사용해도 되겠느냐고 말씀드렸다. 피고인 1 의원이 의도적으로 저희에게 부담시키려고 한 것 같지는 않다”고 진술하고 있고, 피고인 또한 이 법정에서 이 말을 직접 한 상대방이 공소외 10이 아니라는 취지로 진술하고 있다).

Considering that the above dialogue between ○○○ and the Defendant was first established at the time when the said conversation was made between Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10 ( August 10, 2008), Nonindicted 13 Forum was established ( June 17, 2008), and Nonindicted 7 was immediately after Nonindicted 28 acquired the ○○○ office from Nonindicted 28 (round July 2008), the Defendant first ended out talks about the ○○ office, and the relationship between Nonindicted 10 and the Defendant was received at the time, it appears that the Defendant first sawd Nonindicted 10 about the ○ office with any support related to the ○○ office.

(C) As to the practical consultation between Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 7 regarding operating expenses

Nonindicted 26 and Nonindicted 7, who received instructions from the Defendant, have consulted on the operating expenses of the office of ○○○○○. Nonindicted 26, who had received instructions from Nonindicted 10, made a prosecutor’s office to bear the operating expenses and monthly rent of the office of ○○○○○ at Nonindicted 4’s request. Nonindicted 10, on September 2008, he had only one office in his own will. On the other hand, Nonindicted 7 dealt with the above office’s operating expenses and rent. At the same time, Nonindicted 7, who made a statement that he would have to bear the operating expenses of the office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The same shall apply).

In relation to this, ○○○ Nonindicted 7 stated at the prosecution that “The Defendant was not to have been used as the office for Nonindicted Co. 4 and the office for ○○○ was to talk at the phone from Nonindicted Co. 4, and the balance of Nonindicted Co. 12 at the time of telephone with Nonindicted Co. 26 is to be promoted in 2008. In order to jointly use the office, the office must be paid for the same. From the date of December 2008, Nonindicted Co. 4 was paid the monthly rent, and from January 2009, Nonindicted Co. 4 was to have been paid the monthly rent.” In this court, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant was to use the office for Nonindicted Co. 4. On the other hand, the Defendant asked Nonindicted Co. 4 about what degree of operating expenses would not have been paid, and it is difficult to say that it would not be a about the KRW 1,000,000.” However, as seen below, it is consistent with the statement that he would have consistently reached the rent of April 26.”

As to whether the “joint use” was discussed at the time when the first discussion was made by Nonindicted Co. 4 and the Defendant, if there was a discussion about the “joint use”, the actual ○○○○ office prior to the cost of joint use was borne by the Defendant (or Nonindicted Co. 12, etc.), a member of the National Assembly, and Nonindicted Co. 4, a member of the joint use, should have discussed or examined how the office was used, character, time of use, frequency of use, etc. as to whether the office was appropriate for the joint use. However, if Nonindicted Co. 4 paid the office’s operating cost and personnel expenses, but it did not appear that Nonindicted Co. 26 and 10 visited Nonindicted Co. 1 at the time of the joint use (as seen in the above-based facts, Nonindicted Co. 10 decided to bear operating expenses and personnel expenses, and Nonindicted Co. 10 appears to be inappropriate for the Defendant to have held a new ○○ office on the ground that it was possible for the joint use to have been held by the commission.

○○ Meanwhile, at the time of the second investigation by the prosecution, Nonindicted 10 stated that “The Nonindicted 4 Company did not need the above office of the political party, and Nonindicted 7 first registered female employees as the employee of Nonindicted 4 Company and demanded the burden of paying monthly wages and operating expenses. In the first time, Nonindicted 7 was “joint use” with Defendant 1 member, but the first time, however, I think now, I would like to think that only Nonindicted 11’s pay and operating expenses for joint use was borne by Nonindicted 4 Company, which is a female employee of Nonindicted 13 Forum, without the intention to use the office together with Nonindicted 4 Company.” (hereinafter, the investigation record No. 1347 of the investigation record), and even according to the above statement, it seems that there was no serious discussion between Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 4 Company at the time of joint use.

(D) Whether Nonindicted 11 is an employee of Nonindicted Company 4

As to the circumstances in which ○○○ Nonindicted 11 was the employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted 7 stated that Nonindicted 11 recommended Nonindicted Co. 11 by requesting Nonindicted Co. 26 to recommend a good person. However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above statement made by Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 7 appears to have first changed Nonindicted 26 to Nonindicted Co. 11 as an employee.

In other words, in the prosecution and this court, ① Nonindicted 26 stated that “At the time of Nonindicted 7’s phone call with Nonindicted 10 regarding operating expenses of KRW 1 million per month, Nonindicted 7 obtained the consent of Nonindicted 10 on the ground that Nonindicted 7 “At the time of Nonindicted 7’s phone call with Nonindicted 10 with Nonindicted 4’s consent, i.e., the employees of Nonindicted 4 Co., Ltd. and the 4th insurance premium,” and Nonindicted 7 asked Nonindicted 11 to the remuneration of Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 7, who then registered Nonindicted 11 as an employee of Nonindicted 4 Co., Ltd. on September 17, 2008.” ② Nonindicted 10 also stated that Nonindicted 10 had received the said report from Nonindicted 26. ③ Prior to Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 4’s phone calls, it does not seem to have any circumstance or need for employment of employees who will work for ○○○○ office.”

With respect to whether ○○○ Nonindicted Co. 11 is an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 10 stated that “ Nonindicted Co. 11 was an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, who was employed by Nonindicted Co. 13 for the forum, and was related to Nonindicted Co. 4. Nonindicted Co. 11. Nonindicted Co. 11, who was employed by Nonindicted Co. 4 only monthly pay, was not an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, and Nonindicted Co. 11, who was not an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4,” and Nonindicted Co. 26 stated that “ Nonindicted Co. 11 was listed formally at the request of Defendant 1, and was registered as an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, who was paid monthly wages and four major premiums from Nonindicted Co. 4 without any way for Nonindicted Co. 4.” However, in this court, Nonindicted Co. 10 and 26 stated that “The first time was an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4, who was employed by Nonindicted Co. 4, who was not an employee of the prosecution.”

○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office’s position, and Nonindicted 26 stated that Nonindicted 7’s “ around August 2009, Nonindicted 11 had been working in the office until August 20, 2009, so that Nonindicted 11 may receive unemployment benefits. Nonindicted 11 was able to receive unemployment benefits.” Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 11 knew that Nonindicted 11 had been employed in the Defendant’s parliamentary room and in a set. Nonindicted 11, without having worked in the office of ○○○○○ Office, and in the process of receiving unemployment benefits from Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 11 did not have any role led by Nonindicted 4 corporation.”

Comprehensively taking account of the above basic facts and the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 11 was registered as an employee of Nonindicted 4 Company only formally, and not as an employee of Nonindicted 4 Company, and that Defendant’s work related to the Defendant’s political activity, including Nonindicted 13 Forum and Nonindicted 14 Committee-related work, which the Defendant is the representative, is an employee of the Defendant’s side.

(E) Details related to ○○ office after October 2008

○○ Nonindicted 10 made a statement that “The first visit the ○○ Office around November 2008 and the members of the National Assembly became aware of the fact that the ○ Office was the ○○ Office, and that Nonindicted 4’s office was inappropriate to be used as the sales promotion office (product promotion office) for Nonindicted 4 Company.” (On the other hand, in addition, in this court, stated that “where it was determined that Defendant 1 was used mainly by or mainly by Defendant 1 member even on November 2008, it would have been used as the sales promotion office.” However, even if the Defendant used as a mixed, it is difficult to easily understand that the office used by the National Assembly member as the office to promote the sales of products is used as the office to promote the sales of products).

As to the process of bearing the rent for the ○○○ Office from April 2009, Nonindicted Co. 7 stated that “ Nonindicted Co. 4 would pay rent from the beginning to December 2008 with Nonindicted Co. 12’s funds, and from April 2009 to Nonindicted Co. 4’s initial contract, Nonindicted Co. 4 would pay the rent (as stated in the investigation record No. 2170 pages). However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above statement made by Nonindicted Co. 7, and it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted Co. 4 assumed the rent at Nonindicted Co. 7’s request on April 209.

In other words, in the prosecutor's office and this court, the non-indicted 26 stated in the prosecutor's office and this court that "the non-indicted 7 called "the non-indicted 4 was called on April 2009 to settle the rent for February and March with the non-indicted 4 corporation and to bear the monthly rent for the office from April 22, 2009," and that the non-indicted 10 was reported by the non-indicted 26. The non-indicted 4 corporation stated that "the non-indicted 4 corporation was liable to pay the rent for the office from April 22, 2009," and that the non-indicted 1000,000,000 won was reported by the non-indicted 26.

In light of the following circumstances, Nonindicted 7’s statement is difficult to believe, and Nonindicted 7 appears to have made a retroactive joint use contract to deem that “from January 2009, Nonindicted 4 was to bear rent from the beginning. Initial Nonindicted 26 and December 23, 2008, it was written on December 23, 2008, because it was impossible to prepare a promise to make a preparation on December 23, 2008.” However, considering the following circumstances, Nonindicted 7’s statement is difficult to believe, and Nonindicted 7 appears to have made a retroactive joint use contract in order to deem that Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 4 were to be jointly used.

In other words, in the prosecutor's office and this court consistently stated, ① Nonindicted 26 made a statement to the effect similar to that of Nonindicted 7 at the prosecutor's office and this court that "When Nonindicted 7 demanded that the monthly rent be borne by Nonindicted 7 during April 2009, Nonindicted 7 should be seen as having made a contract to be jointly used by Nonindicted 4 corporation from January 2009, and that "on May 2009, Nonindicted 10 visited the office of ○○ and affixed the seal according to the demand of Nonindicted 7" (the investigative record No. 1861, etc.). ② Nonindicted 10 was made a statement to the effect similar to that of Nonindicted 7 at the prosecutor's office (the investigative record No. 1350, however, in this court, Nonindicted 26 should be seen as having received a statement from the prosecutor's office, and the reason that the contract should be made retroactively from the date of joint use to April 40, 2009."

With respect to the circumstances in which Nonindicted Co. 4 was attached on or around the end of April 2009, Nonindicted Co. 7 stated that “Around January 2009 to or around February 2, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 26 asked Nonindicted Co. 26 to the effect that Nonindicted Co. 4 would be liable for the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment for the payment of the payment of the

In other words, ① Nonindicted 26 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that “ Nonindicted 7 demanded the attachment of Nonindicted 4 Co., Ltd. at the end of April 2009” (Article 1862 of the Investigation Record, but this court stated that “The reason stated in the prosecutor’s office was only one reason, and the rent was attached, and there was a discussion to attach it was delayed since the original date). ② Nonindicted 10 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that “ Nonindicted 7 knew that Nonindicted 26 had offered a proposal to jointly use the office for Nonindicted 13 forum and Nonindicted 4 Co., Ltd., first to look at Nonindicted 26’s common use (Article 1351 of the Investigation Record)” (Article 1862 of the Investigation Record, it appears that there was no reason to deem that “The office was attached to Nonindicted Co. 26 on the basis that the office was attached to Nonindicted Co. 14, 2009,” and it did not appear that there was no reason to have been any statement from the present point of view.

(f)other circumstances

○○ Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 26 consistently make a statement that, for prompt licensing procedures for products developed by Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 4 was introduced by the National Institute of Animal Science and Quarantine to the Defendant’s side, the Defendant was placed in charge of obtaining the permission from the National Institute of Animal Science and Quarantine (the Defendant and Nonindicted Co. 7 are denied).

○○ Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 26 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that “Around February 2009, Nonindicted 7 instructed the Defendant to change the Defendant’s office in a clean manner.” (The Defendant and Nonindicted 7 denied this).

○○ Nonindicted 10 made a statement in this Court that “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was called as “at the time of providing the office, but not given preferential treatment from Defendant 1 members,” and Nonindicted 26 made a statement that “ Nonindicted Company 4 asked Nonindicted Company 1 to see that “at the time of Nonindicted 7’s calls from Nonindicted 7’s employees working at the Seoul Seoul Seoul Metropolitan Office or head office after reporting ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.”

Although the Nonindicted Co. 4 had registered the office of ○○○ as Seoul Office from July 2006 to July 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted), it cannot be said that there was a need to additionally secure the office of ○○○○○○ located in the Seoul Western District as of October 2008, in light of the following: (a) concluding a sub-lease contract with respect to the above (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted) used by another person; (b) obtained the registration certificate; and (c) the actual office was not used (the first statement made by Nonindicted Co. 10 Prosecutor’s Office; (d) and the scale of Nonindicted Co. 4’s business.

(2) Whether the operating expenses, etc. that Nonindicted Co. 4 provided without compensation are the Defendant’s political funds

In full view of the above basic facts and the circumstances described in paragraph (1) above, it is reasonable to view that the operating expenses, etc. that Nonindicted Co. 4 provided without compensation are political funds of the Defendant that contributed to supporting the Defendant’s political activities. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the other party provided by Nonindicted Co. 4 is Nonindicted Co. 12 (or Nonindicted Co. 13 Forum) is not acceptable.

With respect to the reasons for providing the ○○○○○ Office, Nonindicted Co. 4 stated that “ Nonindicted Co. 10 was at the time of the first investigation by the prosecutor’s office that made a favorable statement to the Defendant in accordance with the documents responding to the press sent by Nonindicted Co. 7, Nonindicted Co. 10, at the time of Nonindicted Co. 7’s investigation, Nonindicted Co. 10 stated that “In order to maintain a friendly relationship with Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 4, the office was suspended to close the office” (as of June 2009, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 25 of the Investigation Records No. 1025, Nov. 1, 2008, and used the office for Nonindicted Co. 4, who visited Nonindicted Co. 1, in the form of liability for operating expenses of the office and the wages of female employees, Nonindicted Co. 1, 199, Nonindicted Co. 26 stated that Nonindicted Co. 26 had consistently been able to assist Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 4, Ltd. 5’s.

In light of the above contents of Nonindicted 10’s statement as seen earlier, it does not seem that Nonindicted 10 provided operating expenses, etc. to a non-indicted 12 incorporated association or a non-indicted 13 forum, who was not the Defendant at the time of the first conversation between the Defendant and Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 26, and Nonindicted 7, at the time of the first consultation. There is no discussion that the organization bears operating expenses, etc.

In addition, taking account of the following circumstances, it is difficult to regard the operating expenses of the ○○○ office borne by Nonindicted Co. 4 as “support money” provided to Nonindicted Co. 12 or Nonindicted Co. 13 forum, etc., and it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted Co. 4 borne the expenses incurred by Defendant’s side on behalf of Nonindicted Co. 4 or Defendant’s side used the amount received from Nonindicted Co. 4 as operating expenses of the ○○ office.

In other words, according to the National Assembly Research Organization Support Regulations, if a meeting of the National Assembly is held at a place other than the National Assembly, a separate office operating expenses, monthly wages, etc. can only be claimed and executed to the National Assembly. No research organization with a separate office among the research organizations registered in the National Assembly other than the 13 forum (see Nonindicted 7 prosecutor’s statement, 2163 pages). (2) As seen earlier, Nonindicted 12 appropriated membership fees for ○○○○ Office rent and operating expenses, etc., but it appears that the Defendant and Nonindicted 2 did not collect membership fees from January 208, and that there was little need to close the ○○ Office upon the occurrence of membership fees from the National Assembly. ③ Even after Nonindicted 28 acquired the ○○ Office from Nonindicted 128’s respective members, Nonindicted 7 appears to have used the above office fees from Nonindicted 12’s respective members for the operation of the National Assembly, and it appears that there was no other provision on the ○○ Office’s operation of the National Assembly.

(3) Whether the defendant knew that he was political funds for himself or not

In full view of the following circumstances in addition to the above basic facts and the circumstances described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware that the operating expenses of the ○○○ Office provided by Nonindicted Co. 4 was political funds for himself.

It appears that Nonindicted 7, who did not have any special relationship with ○○○ Nonindicted Company 10, 26, etc., could not ask Nonindicted 26 to bear the operating expenses, etc. without the Defendant’s instruction, and even according to Nonindicted 7’s statement, the Defendant, even according to Nonindicted 7’s statement, was “the phone from Nonindicted Co. 4 Co. 4 was flickly flickly flickly,” and it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was receiving operating expenses, etc. from Nonindicted Co. 4 under

Even according to the statement of the Defendant, the Defendant frequently visited the ○○○○○ Office (one week) so it seems that Nonindicted Co. 4 did not use the ○○ Office, and Nonindicted Co. 11 working at the ○○ Office would have been easily aware that Nonindicted Co. 4 did not work for Nonindicted Co. 4 and only work for the Defendant. Furthermore, Nonindicted Co. 11 participated in the Jeju-do event of Nonindicted Co. 13’s forum and it was difficult to consider Nonindicted Co. 11 as an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4.

○ The Defendant also stated at the prosecutor’s office that “In the end of 2008 annual meeting, Nonindicted Co. 11 told that he was employed as an employee of Nonindicted Co. 4 at the meeting of Nonindicted Co. 13 for the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, and that he was so informed that he would jointly use Nonindicted Co. 4 and ○○○ Office for the year 2008 or the beginning of 2009 (the end of 2009).” (Article 2766 of the Investigation Records), even based on such statement, the Defendant was aware that he would be paid the monthly salary of Nonindicted Co. 11 for the Nonindicted Co. 4, and if he was jointly used, Nonindicted Co. 7 was aware that he was in charge of operating expenses and rents of Nonindicted Co. 4 for the business and the benefits of Nonindicted Co. 11.” (The Investigation Records No. 2179).

Defendant 1 received a total of KRW 88 million from Nonindicted 1 the president of Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 2, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 9, a total of KRW 29,383,160, and KRW 41,000 from Nonindicted Co. 4. Defendant 2 in collusion with Defendant 1, in order to ensure the adequate provision of political funds, and to contribute to the sound development of democratic politics, Defendant 3 received a total of KRW 29,383,160, and Defendant 3 received an illegal political fund of KRW 50,000 from Nonindicted Co. 1 among them, in consultation with Defendant 1, and received a payment from employees, received a cash card deposited with political funds, thereby ensuring transparency in the provision of political funds, and in order to contribute to the sound development of democratic politics, the crime of such Defendants’ act is not serious.

However, in the case of Defendant 1, the following facts are favorable to the Defendants: (a) no special consideration is found in the above money and valuables; (b) he faithfully performed parliamentary activities while in office as a member of the National Assembly in good faith; (c) Defendant 2 committed the instant crime in the position of assistant officer of Defendant 1; (d) there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution; and (e) Defendant 3 committed the instant crime in the position of the head of the severe weather alert group of Defendant 1.

Taking into account the various circumstances of the above Defendants, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, career, background leading to the instant case, details of the crime, amount of received money, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments

1. The receipt of US$20,000 and KRW 5 million in cash from Nonindicted 5

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” in this paragraph) received bags containing USD 50,00 in US dollars 50 as activity expenses at the office of the Defendant’s office at around August 2008 from Nonindicted 31 Co., Ltd. 5, the president of the National Assembly hall located in Youngdodong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “5 omitted) around August 2008, in a manner not stipulated by the Political Fund Act, such as not going through a supporters’ association and not exchanging political funds receipts, and received KRW 5,00 in US dollars at the same place as of December 208, 200, ③ around the end of February 2009 through March 2, 2009, KRW 5,000 in US dollars and KRW 50 million in cash from the same place as of August 20, 2009.

B. Defendant’s assertion

There is no fact that money and valuables were received from Nonindicted 5 at the time and place indicated in the facts charged.

C. Determination

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record are consistently stated in the prosecutor's office and this court that the defendant gave a total of KRW 20,000 and KRW 5 million to the defendant in the same manner as stated in the facts charged four times in total. ② Nonindicted 5 consistently stated that the defendant provided the above money and valuables in the name of travel expenses for the defendant's overseas travel expenses. The defendant left the United States on August 26, 2008 and entered the Republic of Korea on September 4, 2008, and was planned to take a business trip to the United States on January 6, 2009, and entered on March 14, 2009 after departure from the United States on March 6, 2009, and the defendant did not appear to have received money from the defendant's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 2009 to the non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1, 207. The reasons that the defendant did not appear to have been given the defendant's money and valuables to the defendant.

However, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, there is little possibility that Nonindicted 5 did not deliver money to the defendant at all or at any time or at any place, other than the date, time, place, and place indicated in the facts charged. In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant received money and valuables stated in the facts charged from Nonindicted 5 at the date, place, on the sole basis of the facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them

(1) Regarding the details of Nonindicted 5’s entrance into the Assembly;

According to the contents of the National Assembly Visiting Standing (No. 5) and the details of the member's access to the Assembly (No. 29), the details of Nonindicted 5's visit to the Council hall near the date and time of the charge are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 방문일시 입청시간 퇴청시간(주 2) 만날사람 2008. 8. 1. 15:52 17:05 피고인 1의원실 2008. 8. 26. 11:03 ？ 피고인 1의원실 2008. 8. 26. 14:33 15:34 공소외 47의원실 2008. 8. 29. 14:01 16:56 공소외 47의원실 2008. 12. 1. 13:52 14:12 공소외 48의원실 2008. 12. 16. 13:46 ？ 공소외 47의원실 2009. 2. 13. 13:20 13:34 공소외 48의원실 2009. 2. 26. 10:22 12:00 공소외 47의원실 2009. 3. 4. 11:26 12:10 피고인 1의원실 2009. 3. 4. 15:11 15:46 공소외 47의원실 2009. 3. 12. 16:00 17:41 공소외 47의원실 2009. 8. 3. 10:15 11:59 피고인 1의원실 2009. 8. 10. 10:16 11:26 공소외 49의원실

Note 2) The retirement hours

The procedures for accessing the National Assembly building of a visitor under the internal rules on the access to the National Assembly building are to enter the personal information system through the purpose of the visit and the confirmation of the intention of the person to visit, keep the identity card of the visitor and deliver a certificate of access to the building. In the case of a public official, a public official's identification card issued by each agency without the procedures such as the visitor shall be filled and entered.

In relation to the date of visit to the National Assembly hall and the method of entrance to the Assembly hall, Non-Indicted 5, in this court, “The wife was in charge of identification cards and left the record, and Non-Indicted 7 was memoryd twice after the month from June to July of 2009. There is no entry into the charges on the date and time. There is only one person who has met several National Assembly members at the time of visit. There is no time written on the date and time of visit. There is no time written on the date of departure from the Republic of Korea, and it was delivered 10 days or two weeks before the date of departure from the Republic of Korea. At the time of arrival of the Defendant to Non-Indicted 23, Non-Indicted 5 was asked at the National Assembly when there is no time and time of entry from the date of departure from the National Assembly, and there is no more than 7 Non-Indicted 1’s attempt to visit the National Assembly member at the same time, and there is no more than 40 days of his withdrawal between the Defendant and Non-Indicted 2.

Considering the above procedure of opening the National Assembly building, Nonindicted 5’s statement, etc., Nonindicted 5 appears to have access to the National Assembly by most visitors according to the National Assembly entrance procedure, and even according to Nonindicted 5’s statement, Nonindicted 5 appears to have opened only one time each of the National Assembly members and several assistants when entering the National Assembly, and two times using a forged identification card (a statement that is not a date of prosecution).

(2) Review of individual charges

(A) As to the charge No. 1

The date of Nonindicted 5’s visit to the National Assembly on August 1, 2008, when Nonindicted 5 visited the National Assembly on August 29, 2008, the date when Nonindicted 5 visited the National Assembly. As seen earlier, August 29, 2008 cannot be the date of delivery of money by Nonindicted 5 because the Defendant fell under the date prior to his entry into the United States. The date of August 26, 2008 falls under the date of his departure from the Republic of Korea and was not known to the date of his departure from the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the delivery date can not be the date by Nonindicted 5’s statement that the Defendant fell under the date of his departure from the United States and was not known to the date of his departure from the Republic of Korea.

However, on August 1, 2008, the date of departure is too distant from the date of departure because it was 25 days prior to the date of departure of the defendant, and on this day, Nonindicted 5 visited the National Assembly Center first and carried out the Economic Cooperation Council with the defendant, Nonindicted 32 members, etc., but Nonindicted 5 stated that it was not issued the date of the Economic Cooperation Council in this court.

After all, the date of Non-Indicted 5’s visit according to the above entry details will no longer be the date on which Non-Indicted 5 delivered to the Defendant under the charge No. 1.

(B) As to the facts charged

On December 1, 2008, the date of Non-Indicted 5's visiting the parliamentary hall on December 1, 2008 and December 16, 2008, and on December 1, 2008, it is too far away from the January 2009, which was the scheduled date of departure of the defendant (Non-Indicted 5, in this court, he also thought that he will leave the hall before leaving the United States because he was scheduled to leave the Republic of Korea, and on December 1, 2008, he stated to the effect that it was not a delivery date because he was not a delivery date on December 1, 2008) and on December 16, 2008.

○ However, on December 16, 2008, the statement was made by Nonindicted 47 Council members as “Isday”. In light of Nonindicted 5’s statement, if I want to deliver money to the Defendant, it would have been likely that the Defendant would have promised in advance and prepared for U.S. dollars, and it would have been likely that I would have recorded the Defendant, and it would not be likely that I would have immediately visited Nonindicted 47 Council members, and that I would have paid her U.S. dollars.

In addition, the time of Non-Indicted 5's admission into the National Assembly appears to have been 13:46 and Non-Indicted 47's membership appears to have been first made by considering that Non-Indicted 47's membership was 13:46 and Non-Indicted 47's membership was 'the Many Day'. According to the evidence Nos. 22 and evidence Nos. 25-10's membership, the Defendant appears to have attended the National Assembly Library for Publication of Non-Indicted 34 open from 13:30 to the National Assembly Library for that day (at least before that day, Non-Indicted 14:30 was marked with the photograph of Non-Indicted 14:30), and immediately, the Defendant appears to have attended the daily tea's membership in the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and attended the policy seminars, etc. and returned to the Council, and if Non-Indicted 5 delivered money at the office of Non-Indicted 1, 134:50,000>

(C) Facts charged No. 3

○ The date of the visit to the Seocho-do Council on February 26, 2009 and March 4, 2009 is the date of February 26, 2009.

On February 26, 2009, Non-Indicted 5 entered Non-Indicted 47 member's office in "the person who was only on the day," and as seen earlier, if the defendant wants to deliver it to the defendant, Non-Indicted 5 appears to have entered the defendant in "the person on the day," and Non-Indicted 5 entered the office 10:22 on that day, and retired from the office 12:00 on that day. According to the defendant's schedule, it is deemed that Non-Indicted 5 received a review report by the Ministry of National Defense on recommended matters concerning the improvement of treatment of non-commissioned

○ 2009. 3. 4.은 피고인의 출국일자인 2009. 3. 6.에 임박하고, 그날 공소외 5는 11:26에 입청하여 12:10에 퇴청하였는바, 피고인의 일정에 의하면 오전 11시에 ■■■연대 공소외 36 상임대표를 면담하는 것으로 되어 있는데, 공소외 5는 이와 관련 이 법정에서 “그분을 의원님 방에서 만났던 기억도 얼핏 나는데, 그분을 만난 날 돈을 줬는지는 잘 모르겠다“고 진술하고 있다.

(D) As to the facts charged

In August 2009, Non-Indicted 5 visited the parliamentary hall on August 3, 2009 and August 10, 2009.

In August 3, 2009, Non-Indicted 5 stated that “I think I would like to visit the defendant together with Non-Indicted 30 because I would like to report the result because I would go to an overseas inspection. I did not pay money.”

○○ On August 10, 2009, deemed that “the person was “Iday,” and the non-indicted 49 members, who were not the defendant, were written on August 10, 2009, and were likely to not deliver to the defendant as seen earlier, and the non-indicted 5 stated in this court that “I would know well that I visited the defendant’s office. I do not know that I have visited the defendant. I have committed the office of the non-indicted 49 members, and I have moved to the defendant’s office and paid money,” and the prosecutor’s office and the court stated that I have given money to the defendant at the defendant’s office on August 10, 2009, but the time of entrance and departure on August 10, 2009 (10:16:11:26) and the defendant went to the non-indicted 37 sick bill on that day, so there was no possibility that I have visited the Council at the time when I visited the defendant.

2. The receipt of KRW 16 million from Nonindicted 5 for expenses incurred in conducting overseas inspections

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, while working as the representative of Nonindicted 13 Forum and the chairman of Nonindicted 14 Committee, was in charge of the event that Nonindicted 13 Forum and members of Nonindicted 14 Committee are conducting overseas inspections in Japan and China from July 27, 2009 to August 2, 2009, when Nonindicted 20 million won were not able to receive support from the National Assembly, the Defendant, on August 12, 2009, ordered Nonindicted 7 and his assistant to receive KRW 16 million from the above Nonindicted 5 to receive KRW 16 million for overseas inspections. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 23 from the above Nonindicted 5.

B. Defendant’s assertion

After Nonindicted 23 did not receive funds from the National Assembly, Nonindicted 5 paid KRW 20 million to Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 23 said Nonindicted 5’s shortage of expenses, Nonindicted 5 deposited KRW 5 million to the travel agency directly, Nonindicted 23 received KRW 11 million from Nonindicted 5, and reported Nonindicted 23 to Nonindicted 7, who was accompanied at the time of the inspection, and deposited in the travel agency in the name of Nonindicted 23 and 51.

However, there was no fact that the Defendant did not know of the shortage of expenses at the time, and that there was no order from Nonindicted 7, etc. to incur a shortage of expenses from Nonindicted 5. ② The expenses received from Nonindicted 5, who was accompanied by Nonindicted 5 at the time of the inspection, are merely a charge of Nonindicted 51 and Nonindicted 23’s travel expenses by adding the expenses for his own travel. ③ At the time, Nonindicted 14 Committee and Nonindicted 13 Forum was supervised by Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 14 Committee and Nonindicted 13 Forum was the target of Nonindicted 5’s subsidization, and thus, the said subsidization cannot be deemed as the Defendant’s political funds.

C. Determination

피고인이 공소외 7, 23에게 공소외 5로부터 해외시찰 경비 1,600만 원을 지원받도록 순차적으로 지시하였는지에 관하여 보건대, 기록에 의하면, ① 2009. 3. ~ 4.경 피고인이 그해 여름 해외시찰을 가자고 제안하여 공소외 15가 행사계획 초안을 작성하였고, 2009. 6.경 공소외 15가 퇴직한 후 공소외 7 등이 계획을 세운 사실, ② 피고인은 국회사무총장으로부터 해외시찰과 관련하여 2,000만 원의 국회 예산 지원이 가능하다는 구두 답변을 듣고 공소외 7에게 실무처리를 지시하였고, 공소외 7은 2009. 7. 9.경 피고인의 승낙 하에 국회의장실( 공소외 13 포럼 명의로 보냄)과 □□□당 대표최고위원( 공소외 14 위원회 명의로 보냄)에게 각 2,000만 원, 1,000만 원을 지원해 달라는 공문을 보냈는데, 국회의장실에 보낸 공문에 첨부된 해외시찰계획안에는 소요 예산과 관련하여 ‘ 공소외 13 포럼 정회원(국회의원임) 16명이 참석하는 것을 기준으로 총 5,685만 원이 필요. 공소외 13 포럼 잔여 예산 1,135만 원, 참석회원 갹출 2,550만 원, 부족 경비 2,000만 원은 국회지원 요청.’ 등의 내용이 기재되어 있고, 2009. 7. 24. □□□당으로부터 700만 원이 위 시찰과 관련하여 지원된 사실, ③ 2009. 7. 27.부터 2009. 8. 2까지 피고인을 포함하여 공소외 14 위원회 및 공소외 13 포럼 소속 국회의원 12명과 공소외 14 위원회 사무처장 공소외 30, 공소외 14 위원회 간사 공소외 52, 공소외 14 위원회 위원 공소외 5, 23을 합하여 16명이 위 해외시찰을 다녀왔는데, 참석 국회의원 중 피고인을 제외한 11명이 각 200만 원을 갹출한 합계 2,200만 원, □□□당에서 지원받은 700만 원을 포함하여 합계 36,550,000원(총 여행경비는 52,777,980원)을 출국 전에 공소외 53 여행사에 입금한 사실, ⑤ 국회에 요청한 2,000만 원의 예산은 지원되지 않았고, 시찰을 다녀온 이후 공소외 53 여행사가 미납한 여행경비 지급을 공소외 7 등에게 독촉하였고, 2008. 8. 12.경 공소외 5는 공소외 23을 만난 후 500만 원을 공소외 53 여행사에 입금하고, 공소외 23이 공소외 5로부터 1,100만 원을 받아와 공소외 30 명의로 500만 원, 공소외 23 명의로 600만 원을 공소외 53 여행사에 각 입금한 사실이 인정되고, 여기에 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 공소외 5는 1,600만 원을 지원하게 된 경위와 관련하여 “2009. 5. ~ 6.경 공소외 30이 해외시찰 경비로 3,000만 원을 요구하였는데, 출국 직전에 공소외 30과 공소외 23이 □□□당에서 경비를 지원받았고, 국회에 요청한 경비가 나올 것 같다며 경비를 부담하지 않아도 된다고 하였다. 시찰을 다녀온 이후 공소외 30과 공소외 23이 국회에 요청한 돈이 나오지 않았다며 지원을 요청하였다”고 진술하는 점, ② 국회에서 예산 지원이 가능할 수 있다는 것을 피고인을 통하여 알게 되어 실무처리를 하였던 공소외 7이 추후 예산 지원이 되지 않아 1,600만 원의 비용이 부족하게 되었다면 이는 당연히 피고인에게 보고하여야 할 사항으로 보이는 점, ③ 공소외 15는 2009. 4.경 해외시찰 예산과 관련하여 피고인이 공소외 5도 있으니까 걱정하지 말라고 이야기하였고, 2009. 5.경 국회 아주과 직원이 해외시찰의 예산 지원에 대하여 부정적으로 답변한 것을 피고인에게 보고하였다고 진술하는 점 등을 고려하면, 피고인이 국회로부터 예산지원이 되지 않은 사정을 알고 공소외 7 등에게 공소외 5로부터 예산 지원을 받으라고 지시한 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is not sufficient to recognize that Nonindicted 7 was ordered by Nonindicted 5 to receive KRW 16 million from Nonindicted 5 to receive support from Nonindicted 5 without reporting to the Defendant the circumstances in which the budget was not supported by the National Assembly, and to resolve the shortage of expenses. In full view of these circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that Nonindicted 7 instructed the Defendant to receive KRW 16 million from Nonindicted 5’s overseas inspection expenses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

○ Nonindicted 5 stated that “Non-Indicted 5 did not inform the Defendant of the fact that it provided KRW 16 million for overseas inspection expenses.”

○○ Nonindicted 15 retired on or around June 2009 due to the infertility with employees in the Defendant’s parliamentary room. Considering the attitude of testimony, the circumstances of retirement, etc., it is difficult to completely exclude the possibility that Nonindicted 15 made a false statement.

Pursuant to the consistent statement, Nonindicted 7 consistently stated that the circumstances in which the National Assembly did not provide budgetary support from the National Assembly at the time and the details of Nonindicted 5’s support from Nonindicted 7 did not report to the Defendant. As for that reason, this Court stated in this court that “Nonindicted 15’s senior secretary went to the Defendant during his retirement, who would have been flickly flickly flickly, during his retirement. Therefore, he did not want to disclose flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly flickly fl

As the defendant was delegated to non-indicted 7 with the practical process in the situation of receiving answers that can be made by the National Assembly, there is a possibility that he did not have an interest in the settlement of the inspection cost.

Around May 2009, Nonindicted 5 stated that the Defendant’s employees and Nonindicted 5 had borne part of the Defendant’s travel expenses, and Nonindicted 7, 23 et al. had told Nonindicted 7, et al. to take out the overseas travel at their own expense prior to the overseas inspection. Nonindicted 5 stated that the Defendant’s employees and employees appear to have come close without a smnasium, such as: (a) Nonindicted 23 met with Nonindicted 23 and provide meals; and (b) Nonindicted 5 told Nonindicted 7 that he would pay the expenses incurred prior to the overseas inspection.”

3. Conclusion

Thus, among the facts charged against Defendant 1, the violation of each of the Political Funds Act related to Nonindicted 5 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted Defendant 1 under the latter part of Article 32

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judge Hong-Myeon (Presiding Judge)

(1) The defendant's defense counsel asserts that the amount provided by the non-indicted 4 corporation is KRW 35 million (see the summary of the argument in May 25, 2010). It appears to the purport that the non-indicted 4 corporation did not use each three million deposited on September 21, 2009, and returned it to the non-indicted 4 corporation on October 20, 2009, and it should be excluded from this amount. However, as seen above, since the crime of illegal receipt of political funds takes place at the time of receiving it, the crime of illegal receipt of political funds takes place at the time of receiving it, and thus, it does not affect the establishment of the crime, and the total amount of KRW 41 million, including the above total amount of KRW 6 million, is the amount contributed by the non-indicted 4 corporation.

2) When the withdrawal time has not been written, it is the case where the visitor is withdrawn from the office after the completion of the computer of the guidance center after work or a large number of visitors have not entered through the guidance room at the same time.