Kim Tae-tae et al.

Defendant 1 through 4, 6 through 9, and the Prosecutor

Lee Dong-won

Attorneys Jeon Ho-ho et al.

Jeju District Court Decision 2006Gohap173 Decided January 16, 2007

The remainder of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part of innocence as to Defendant 2, 4, 6, 9 and the part of the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 5 guilty and that Defendant 5 was processed jointly in the participation in the election campaign planning of Defendant 5, shall be reversed.

Defendant Kim Tae-tae shall be punished by a fine of 6,00,000 won, Defendant 2, 4, and 9 by a fine of 4,000,000 won, and Defendant 6 by a fine of 2,00,000 won, respectively.

If the above Defendants did not pay the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined to the Labor House for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

Each of the above defendants shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 2’s act of participating in the election campaign planning by Defendant 2 and 9 through Defendant 3’s recommendation of the candidate for the person responsible for the election campaign in Seodaemun-dong and the examination of the North Korean literature case, in collusion with Defendant 2 and 9, Defendant 2 conspireded with Defendant 4, Defendant 4, and Defendant 9 to participate in the election campaign planning of Defendant 4 through the recommendation of the person responsible for the scam and the scam and the examination of the organization chart, and Defendant 4 and 9 conspired with Defendant 2 and Kim Tae-tae, respectively.

All appeals against the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 5 and 7 and the appeal against the defendant 7, 3, and 8 regarding the part of innocence as to the defendant Kim Tae-hwan and the appeal against the defendant 7, 3, and 8 are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants

(i)misunderstanding of facts;

㈎ 피고인 4 메모와 조직표에 관한 피고인 김태환, 피고인 4, 9의 항소이유

Defendant 4 recommended “Non-Indicted 1 and 2” in the process of recommending a person who will represent the position of the Do Office from among the private personnel of the region in order to solve the situation of Do governor and Do governor, and reported the contents thereof to Kim Tae-hwan. Although Defendant 9 voluntarily prepared for the promotion of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the current status of the person in charge of the regional, occupational, and special management organization (hereinafter “organization chart”) in the judgment of the court below was not related to the election campaign of Kim Tae-do, the court below found that the above Defendants conspired to commit the crime of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below.

㈏ 피고인 6 메모에 관한 피고인 6, 김태환의 항소이유

Defendant 6 reported to Kim Tae-hwan merely because it is merely a report of the general public situation or a document for promoting Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the public official participated in the election campaign planning. However, the court below found that the above Defendants conspired to commit the crime under Article 3-B of the decision of the court below.

㈐ 산남문건에 관한 피고인 2, 9의 항소이유

Defendant 2’s “case of recommendation for the person responsible for the area south South and North Korea” (hereinafter “U.S. case”) is a document prepared by Defendant 9 to prepare for the border line of Korea-U.S. and thus, Defendant 2’s completion into the Mana case alone cannot be deemed as having participated in the planning of an election campaign, and thus, it cannot be deemed as having committed a crime. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendants committed a crime under paragraph (2) of the said judgment.

㈑ 피고인 7의 항소이유

The defendant 7's father, the non-indicted 3, who was the non-indicted 7's father, prepared documents from the mack to the village in which the position of the Do justice was actively promoted on July 27, 2005 in the residents' voting on the pros and cons of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, which was implemented on July 27, 2005. The defendant 7 was given to the defendant 7 for the purpose of delivering it to Kim Tae-hwan, not for the election campaign, and there was an active and planned act that can be objectively recognized as the intention of the purpose of inducing the election of a specific person in order to participate in the planning of the election campaign. However, although the defendant 7 cannot be deemed to have participated in the planning of the election campaign with the provision of mixed documents to Kim Tae-hwan, the court below erred by finding that the defendant 7 committed the crime under Article 3-A (a)

B. Grounds for appeal against Defendant Kim Tae-tae on the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Public Official Election Act

The act of "participation in planning an election campaign" prohibited by Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act is premised on the participation of others in the election campaign, and therefore Kim Tae cannot be the subject of the act of participating in the above election campaign planning. Therefore, although Kim Tae-tae did not constitute a violation of the Public Official Election Act, the court below erred that Kim Tae-tae committed the crime of participating in the planning of an election campaign.

【Legal principles concerning admissibility of seized articles

The instant seized article violates Articles 118, 122, 123, and 129 of the Criminal Procedure Act providing that “the warrant of search and seizure shall be presented to the person subject to the disposition.” “The date and time and place of the execution shall be notified in advance to the defendant or his defense counsel before the execution of the warrant of search and seizure,” and “a public office, etc. shall notify the person in charge of the execution of the search and seizure to participate in the execution of the warrant.” In the case of seizure, the list shall be prepared and delivered to the owner, possessor, custodian, and any equivalent person.” The seized article seized in accordance with such unlawful procedure shall be inadmissible as illegally collected evidence. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of the seizure procedure and admissibility of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

x. Reasons for appeal filed by Defendant 4, 2, and 9 on the violation of the principle of non-acceptance;

The lower court recognized the details of Defendant 4’s domains delivered from Defendant 4 to Defendant 9 via Kim Tae-tae, and recognized the details reflected in the organizational chart and the circumstances leading Defendant 2 to go to the Namdaemun, unlike the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(v) the grounds for appeal by Defendants 2 and 4 concerning the misapprehension of the legal principles of a legitimate act;

Although the act of this case is included in the scope of business or on the extension of business, it does not constitute a crime because it constitutes a legitimate act, that is, a “act due to business or other act which does not contravene the social norms,” the lower court erred by misapprehending that the above Defendants committed the crime.

⑹ 공직선거법의 법리오해에 관한 피고인 3, 8의 항소이유

Since it is lawful for the above defendants to participate in the invitation debate permitted under the Public Official Election Act as a candidate, the above defendants' act of preparing the above debate is merely the preparation for election campaign and it cannot be seen as participating in the planning of election campaign. However, the court below erred by finding that the above defendants committed the crime of Paragraph 4 of the judgment below.

⑺ 양형부당

The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 6,00,00, the fine of KRW 2,500,000, the fine of KRW 800,000, the fine of KRW 30,000, the respective fine of KRW 4,000, the fine of KRW 4,000, and the fine of KRW 1,50,000, the fine of KRW 600,00, and the fine of KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

(b) Grounds for appeal by prosecutors;

(i) mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to co-principals in the South and North Korean case and organizational chart;

In the co-principal relationship, even though all accomplices gather at a certain place and directly gather, there is a liaison with or awareness of the intent to commit the crime, either indirectly or in a successive manner. Meanwhile, the candidate for the person in charge of the election campaign at Seopo-si in Seopo-si and Seopo-si who recommended the defendant 2 to participate in the election campaign planning and the person in charge of the region on the scambling and scambling, and recommended the person in charge of the election campaign planning and the person in charge of the region on the scambling and scambling, and Defendant 4, who reviewed the organization chart, continued to participate in the election campaign planning and the organization of the election campaign organization, with the consistent objective of organizing the election campaign organization. However, all of the defendant Kim Tae-tae or defendant 4 did not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant 2's participation in the election campaign, or in the order of communication with the defendant 9 through the mediation of the defendant 2.

In addition, even if Defendant 2 also recommended a regional responsible person on the face of conjection and friendly map, and did not process all the individual process of preparing an organizational chart to review and correct the organizational chart, as long as the intent to prepare an organizational chart is recognized by using other competitors’ act, Defendant 2 shall be held liable as a co-principal for all crimes. Accordingly, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 2 participated in preparing an organizational chart or that Defendant 4 was aware of the involvement in the election campaign planning as above, and that Defendant 2’s judgment that found Defendant 2 not guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to co-principal.

She Other mistake of facts as to the acquittal

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to prove the facts charged, and found the Defendant guilty on the ground that there was no other evidence to prove the facts.

【Unjustifiableness

Each sentence sentenced by the court below against Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 4, Defendant 4, and Defendant 9 as to Defendant 4’s main body and organizational chart

(i)The nature of the organizational chart;

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 위 피고인들의 주장과 같이 조직표가 특별자치도 홍보를 위한 것이라면 김태환 개인의 이력에 중점을 두어 조직을 구성할 필요가 없었을 것인데, 조직표는 김태환의 종친회, 고향인 구좌읍, 출신학교인 제주대 등까지 관리대상으로 선정하고 관리공무원을 지정하고 있는 점, 조직표가 김태환에게 교부될 무렵 같이 교부된 조직표를 설명하는 문건에 ‘최종 분야별(지역.직능.특별관리) 책임자가 확정되면 책임자로 하여금 숙원사업을 요청하도록 해서 힘을 실어 주시면 효과가 있을 것입니다’, ‘후속조치로는 분야별 책임자와 관리공무원이 함께 소그룹별 팀장 구슬 꿰매는 작업을 3. 20.까지 완료 하겠습니다’라는 내용의 선거운동 관련문구가 기재되어 있는 점, 조직표에 책임자나 관리공무원으로 기재된 사람들( 공소외 4, 5, 6, 7)의 실제 선거운동 동향이 김태환에게 주간보고의 형식으로 보고되기까지 한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 조직표는 특별자치도 홍보를 위해 작성된 것이 아니고 김태환의 선거운동용으로 작성된 것이라 할 것이다.

B. The nature of Defendant 4 and the relationship of conspiracy

In addition, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence of the court below, i.e., Nonindicted 1, Do governor as the responsible person, and Nonindicted 2 and 1, who recommended Nonindicted 8 as the responsible person in charge of Do governor as well, correspond to the contents of the recommendation of the responsible person on the organization chart, Nonindicted 9, who recommended Nonindicted 1 to be the responsible person on the organization chart, stated Nonindicted 1 as the responsible person in the organization chart; Nonindicted 1’s name as “Nonindicted 1-1”; Nonindicted 1’s name as “Myeon Development Advisory Committee”; and Nonindicted 1’s position as “Myeon Development Committee Chairman” was repeated equally in the organization chart; Nonindicted 4’s name as indicated in the organization chart; Defendant 4’s name as well as Defendant 4’s name as indicated in the organization chart; and Defendant 1’s name as indicated in the organization chart as Defendant 4’s name on the recommendation of Nonindicted 9, the author of the organization schedule, and Defendant 1’s name as indicated in the organization chart.

【Court Decision】

Therefore, the court below is just in finding Defendant 4 as guilty of the facts charged that Defendant 4's act of participating in the election campaign planning in collusion with Defendant 4, Kim Tae-hwan, and Defendant 9, who recommended the person responsible for the region of the prosecution and the friendly map, and examined the organization list, and there is no error of law as argued by the above Defendants.

Although the court below recognized the specific circumstances reflected in the organization chart as somewhat different from the facts charged by delivering the contents of Defendant 4 to Defendant 9 via Kim Tae-hwan, in case where there is no concern about a substantial disadvantage to the exercise of the right of defense, it can be recognized that the facts different from the facts charged without following the amendment of indictment to the same extent as the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1667, Jun. 15, 2006, etc.). The court below recognized that the basic facts of the process of transmitting the contents of Defendant 4’s joint appearance are somewhat different within the scope of the facts charged, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was a substantial disadvantage to the above Defendants’ exercise of the right of defense. Thus, the court below did not err by violating the principle of no accusation.

All of the grounds for appeal by the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

B. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 6 against Defendant Kim Tae-hwan and Defendant 6

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 메모가 작성되어 교부된 시기가 선거를 눈앞에 둔 시점인 점, 그 내용 또한 ‘지역에서 입김이 있는 젊은이로 전화 필요’, ‘전화 한번 하면 적극 뛸 듯’, ‘얼마 전 지사님 방문한 적 있으나 확실하게 하기 위하여 지사님께서 관심 있는 전화 한마디 필요‘, ’지사님 한마디면 적극적으로 할 수 있을 것’, 지사님 남제주군수 시절 공무원’, ‘지난번 재·보궐선거 때도 지사님을 많이 도왔던 분이고 지금도 관심을 많이 갖고 있는데 지사님 전화가 필요‘ 등 김태환에 대한 지지 여부, 김태환과의 개인적인 관계, 지역에서의 영향력, 김태환의 재·보궐선거 등에서의 조력 정도 등을 언급하면서 김태환에게 메모에 기재된 인사들에게 전화로 접촉할 것을 권유하는 내용인 점, 메모에 기재된 인사들 중 다수가 조직표상 피고인 6이 관리하도록 되어 있는 대정읍에 거주하거나 연고가 있는 사람들인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 6이 위 메모를 작성하여 김태환에게 보고한 행위는 김태환이 지역인사들을 상대로 전화로 접촉하는 방법으로 효율적으로 선거운동을 할 수 있도록 하기 위한 것으로서 공직선거법 제86조 제1항 제2호 에서 말하는 '선거운동의 기획에 참여하는 행위'라고 할 것이고, 거기에다가 김태환이 교부받은 메모에 빨간색 사인펜으로 ○표시를 하는 등으로 가필하여 이를 업무일지에 부착하여 보관하면서 권유받은 대로 거기에 기재된 인사들 중 한사람에게 전화를 하기까지 한 점 등 위 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 그 밖의 다른 사정을 보태어 보면, 김태환으로서도 메모에 기재된 지역인사들을 상대로 전화로 접촉하는 방법으로 선거운동을 할 의도로 이를 보고받았음을 충분히 인정할 수 있다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the court below is just in finding Defendant 6 guilty of the facts charged in collusion with Defendant 6 and Kim Tae-hwan, and there is no violation of law as alleged by the above Defendants.

All appeals by the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

C. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 9 on the Nammun-gu, Busan

In full view of the evidence adopted in its judgment, the court below found that the defendant 2 and 9 conspired with the defendant 2 to show that the defendant 9 was prepared for the purpose of forming a regional responsible person for the Jeju Do governor's election, and the defendant 2 reviewed the above documents and presented his opinion to the defendant 6, who is a public official of the Jeju-do Office from the Republic of Korea to the person who was entered as the candidate for the presidential officer in charge of the presidential branch office and the public official of the defendant 6 who is the public official of the Jeju-do Office from the presidential branch office, and determined that the above documents participated in the planning of the election campaign to exchange the defendant Kim Tae, and thereby convicted all the above defendants. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of law as pointed out in the grounds for appeal.

The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the act of Defendant 9’s act of carrying out the above documents in the election campaign is not an election campaign but an act of Defendant 2’s election campaign, and thus, Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to participate in the planning of an election campaign.

An election campaign under the Public Official Election Act refers to any active and planned act that is necessary for, or favorable to, the election of a specific candidate, and that can be objectively recognized by the intention of promoting the success or defeat in the election. It is distinguishable from an act of preparing an election campaign that falls under the internal and procedural preparation for the future election campaign or ordinary political party activities. However, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined whether the act is an act that involves not only the name of the act, but also the form of the act, i.e., the time, place, method, etc. of the act, and shall be comprehensively observed in order to determine whether an act constitutes an election campaign (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do301, Oct. 14, 2005, etc.).

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the primary election for the Jeju-do governor candidate to run in the local election on May 31, 31 is deemed to have been selected by the candidate based on the results of the public opinion poll conducted by 20% of representatives or members, 30% of the members responsible, 30% of the National Assembly members, and 20% of the results of the public opinion poll conducted by 50% of the National Assembly members. As such, activities conducted to be elected at the same time including general voters, who are not members of 50% of the National Assembly members, are accompanied by the nature of the election campaign at the same time, and therefore, it cannot be deemed to be merely an act of preparation for the election campaign, and it shall be deemed to be an act of preparation for the election campaign.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s act of considering the above documents and presenting his opinion as “Defendant 6’s friendship relationship” constitutes an act of participating in the planning of an election campaign.

In addition, even though it is merely a "act of preparation for election campaign", in light of the legislative intent of Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act, even if a public official's act of participating in the planning of election campaign is nothing more than an act of preparation for election campaign, it shall be deemed prohibited by the above provision (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2004Hun-Ba33, Jun. 30, 2005). Therefore, the grounds for appeal by the above Defendants on this point shall be no reason.

In addition, in light of the records, the facts acknowledged by the court below and the facts stated in the indictment concerning the defendant 2's reasons leading to the completion of the defendant 2 to the Nam-gu case are identical to the facts prepared by the defendant 9, and only the specific circumstances are somewhat different within the scope, and it cannot be said that there was a substantial disadvantage to the above defendants' defense right. Thus, the court below did not err in violation of the principle of no accusation.

All appeals by the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

D. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 7

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below compiled the evidence adopted in its judgment and prepared documents containing the name, contact number, and occupation of 35 persons from the principal within the jurisdiction of Chocheon-dong on February 2006 to Defendant 7. The list attached to the above documents was prepared by Defendant 7 with his father (non-party 3) who works for the autonomous administration division, and the list prepared his best to the local branch for the sake of the establishment of the branch office. Although it is somewhat little, it would be difficult to see that the branch office has been frighted so far. In particular, in the North village of North Korea, the court below did not have an atmosphere to support the establishment of the branch office with his father, focusing on the area maintenance, and there was no error of law in the planning and execution of the election campaign by attaching it to the meeting of the public officials from North Korea (non-party 12 and 24 persons in charge of fire fighting and management) and the planning and execution of the local election campaign by the non-indicted 3's leader.

E. As to the grounds for appeal against Defendant Kim Tae-tae who erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Public Official Election Act

The crime of illegal election campaign in violation of Article 255 (1) 10 and Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act is established by "the public official participates in the planning of an election campaign or in the implementation of such planning". Since the above election campaign refers to an election campaign by another person, even if the public official wishes to be a candidate or candidate, he/she cannot be the subject of the above crime in relation to his/her own planning, but if a candidate or a person wishing to be a candidate processes the act of a public official who is an identification person in relation to the planning of his/her election campaign, he/she can be the joint principal offender of the above crime pursuant to the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2932 Decided March 25, 2004). The reason why the non-identification person who wishes to be a candidate is punished as a principal offender in relation to his/her election campaign cannot be accepted as well as his/her own opinion that his/her act of participating in the planning of an election campaign.

F. As to the grounds of appeal that misunderstanding the legal principles as to the admissibility of seized articles

Even if the seizure procedure is unlawful, it does not change the nature and form of the seized article itself, but does not change the evidence of its form, nature, etc., and thus, it should be admitted as evidence. The exclusion of the admissibility of seized articles, which are clear and useful evidence of criminal facts, for the reason of illegality in the seizure procedure, may result in the elimination of criminal offenders by making it difficult to discover substantial truth, and this results in impairing the public confidence in the judicial process. The suppression effect of illegal investigation can be achieved more effectively without excluding the admissibility of seized articles.

In the same purport, the Supreme Court has held that "the seized articles shall not change their nature and form, even if the seizure procedure is unlawful, so they shall be admissible as it has no change in evidence" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Do932, Sept. 17, 1968; 87Do705, Jun. 23, 1987; 93Do318, Feb. 8, 1994; 96Do88, May 14, 1996; 2004Do4731, Oct. 28, 2005; 2006Do3194, Jul. 27, 2006; 2006Do3194, etc.). Thus, the prosecutor's assertion that there was no further reason to change the form of seizure as alleged in the ground for appeal in this part is without merit.

This part of the appeal by Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2, 4, 9, 6, and 7 cannot be accepted.

G. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant 2 and 4 that misunderstanding the legal principles as to a justifiable act

Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is permissible in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics and social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6008, Jan. 28, 2005, etc.). Defendant 4, who is a public official, prepares and issues a note to the effect that Defendant 4 recommended a regional person in charge of drilling and friendly drawings, and presents an opinion to Defendant 2, such as an act of making a correction after reviewing the organization chart, and considering it, it does not constitute “an act or duty by law” as provided in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and in light of the legislative purport of Article 86(1) of the Public Official Election Act, such an act does not constitute “an act or duty by law,” and it does not constitute “an act or duty by law” as provided in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and it is difficult to view it as an act or duty ordinarily in light of social ethics and social norms at the bottom of the entire legal order, as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, this part of the appeal by the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

H. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant 3 and 8

(i) Whether the election is planned or not.

"Act of participating in planning election campaign" under Article 86 (1) 2 of the Public Official Election Act means participating in the efficient implementation of election campaign (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2932 delivered on March 25, 2004).

In full view of the evidence adopted in the judgment, the court below found that the defendant 8 and the defendant 3 conspired to make a debate-related document to the Kim Tae-hwan for the debate to invite the people to be withdrawn from the meeting held by Jeju MBC, discussed the expected contents of answers in order to be present at the debate to be invited by Jeju KBS, and confirmed the department in charge of the response data, and held that they participated in the planning of an election campaign and held that they were convicted of the above defendants. In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the grounds for appeal.

The participation of a candidate who participates in an election in a debate held in order to verify the candidate's quality and policies should be deemed as part of "election campaign". As such, creating debate-related materials or preparing debates for such debate falls under "participation in the planning of election campaign". The argument in the grounds of appeal is that the act of creating debate-related materials or preparing debate is merely the preparation of election campaign, not the election campaign, but merely the preparation of the election campaign, and it cannot be deemed that the act of a public official participating in the planning of election campaign is prohibited by the above provision even if the act of participating in the planning of election campaign is nothing more than the preparation of election campaign (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2004Hun-Ba33, Jun. 30, 2005). Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal as to this point is without merit.

Do Governor Whether unreasonable sentencing is inappropriate

In light of the motive and background of the instant crime and the consequences thereof, and all the conditions that form the basis for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the previous conviction, age, character and conduct, and environment of the said Defendants, the lower court’s sentence against the said Defendants cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

The appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. As to the non-guilty part of the defendant Kim Tae-tae and the non-guilty part of the defendant 4 as to the Namnam-gu case

(i) Whether an inclusive crime is committed

Where a number of acts or a series of acts falling under the name of the same crime continues to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and where the legal benefits from such damage are the same, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of the criminal's intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do2932, Mar. 25, 2004; 2002Do5672, May 28, 2004, etc.).

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances (as of February 2006) and the organization table (as of March 13, 2006) differ from each other; the organization of the organization of the organization of the region located in the Namnam region; the organization table aims at not only the organization of the region but also the organization of the special management organization such as the organization of the organization by function and the family council; the organization of the organization is not only the organization of the region but also the organization of the area of the area of Jeju-do; the organization of the organization of the non-governmental organization is not the area of the area of the area of the area of the area but also the organization of the non-governmental organization of the area of the area of the area of the non-governmental personnel; however, the organization table aims to establish the organization of the organization of the non-governmental organization and the special management organization of each region of the area of which the public official is responsible for each person; the organization table is separate from the organization of the organization of the general personnel group of the organization of the two members.

Therefore, the defendant 2's participation in the election campaign planning act and the person responsible for the area on the organization chart, and the defendant 4's participation in the election campaign planning by examining the organization chart cannot be viewed as a series of acts continuously conducted in order to form a single election campaign organization, and this is a separate act. Thus, both parties are in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes rather than a single comprehensive crime.

【Method of Judgment on Public Offerings

As above, if Defendant 2’s crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to Defendant 4’s participation in the planning of election campaign and the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to Defendant 4’s participation in election campaign is not a single comprehensive crime but a substantive concurrent crime, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2’s participation in election campaign planning that Defendant 4’s participation in the election campaign planning of the South and North Korea, who presented his opinion by taking advantage of the following: (a) it is not sufficient to recognize that other persons would intervene in the preparation of a separate and independent election slip; and (b) it is necessary for Defendant 2 to concretely recognize that Defendant 2 participated in the planning of election campaign for Kim Tae-tae in the way of taking account of the North and South Korea case; and (c) this interpretation is in accord with the form provided for in Article 86(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act, which regulates the participation of the public official in election campaign by prohibiting the participation in election campaign planning of the “public official.”

【Court Decision】

However, even after examining the record, there is no evidence to see that Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that Defendant 4 was involved in the planning of election campaign for the purpose of Kim Tae-tae in the way of taking a part in the planning of election campaign for the purpose of Kim Tae-tae.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that Defendant 2's participation in the election campaign planning through the review of the Nam-gu case was not guilty in all of the charges that Defendant Kim Tae-hwan and Defendant 4 conspired with Defendant 2 and Defendant 9, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to co-principal as pointed out in the grounds for appeal.

The prosecutor's grounds for appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

B. As to the non-guilty part of the defendant 2 on the defendant 4's joint appearance and organizational chart

As seen earlier, inasmuch as Defendant 2’s crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act through Defendant 2’s participation in planning of election campaign and the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act through Defendant 4’s participation in planning of election campaign is not an inclusive crime, but an active concurrent crime, it is necessary for Defendant 4 to specifically recognize that Defendant 2 is participating in planning of election campaign for Kim Tae by the aforementioned method in order to recommend the person in charge of election campaign planning on the organization list and the person in charge of the area of the drawing and drawing, and to hold Defendant 4, who has reviewed the organization chart and participated in the revised work, as joint principal offender, in order to hold Defendant 2 accountable for the participation in the election campaign planning of Kim Tae-hwan

Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court below which acquitted Defendant 2 of all the charges that Defendant 2 conspired with Kim Tae-hwan, Defendant 4, and Defendant 9 of this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of misconception of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as to co-principal as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

The prosecutor's appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

C. As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2, 4, and 9 on the recommendation of a person in charge of the Chinese style region

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Defendant 2 not guilty of the above facts in light of the following facts: "In collusion with Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and 9, the office office of Jeju-do Do governor, which is linked to Jeju-do around February 2006, as the candidate for the region of Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Kim Tae-si, who recommended him to be the director in charge of the region of Seopo-si, Seopo-dong, Seopo-do, and the above person in charge, who participated in the planning of an election campaign." The court below found Defendant 2 not guilty of the above facts as to the above facts charged, and there is no evidence to find that the defendant was not guilty of the above facts charged, and there is no error in the law as to when and when the defendant was found not guilty of the above facts.

The prosecutor's appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

D. As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2, 4, and 9 as to the report of the South Korean Won-dong Association

(i) Summary of the facts charged

In collusion with Defendant 4, 9, 2, and Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2 discussed the organization structure and operation plan for election campaign in the organization chart around 12:0 on March 14, 2006, the fact that he was designated as a public official in charge of the management of the Nam-gun Nam-gun in Jeju-gun on the organization chart, and discussed the organization organization of Nonindicted 16, etc., designated as a person in charge of the organization chart in the organization chart in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul-do. At that time, Defendant 2 reported documents in the office of Jeju Do governor's office to Kim Tae-tae, stating the results of the above discussion and the encouragement of the Do governor, and participated in the planning of election campaign by making out the contact information of Nonindicted 17, the head

B. Judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted all of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that Defendant 4, 9, 2, and Kim Tae-tae conspired to participate in the election campaign planning through the report of the South Korean Won-dong Council.

【Court Judgment of this Court

㈎ 김태환 및 피고인 2 부분

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the remaining documents of the local council was agreed to make every effort by Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 18, and the head of the existing liaison office, Nonindicted 19, and Nonindicted 20 to carry out an election campaign for Kim Tae-tae, in the jurisdiction of the Nam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on March 14, 12:00, and Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 18, and the head of the existing liaison office, Nonindicted 19, and the head of the local office, and decided to appoint a village unit plan up to the next week, and discussed once every ten days, and there was a question about office problems, accounting issues, and office issues. There was a question about the number of the branch offices. There was a telephone number of Nonindicted 16, 18, 19, and 20, and the fact that Nonindicted 2 had his phone number on the remaining part of the Eup and the head of the Eup and the head of the Eup and the head of the Eup and the head of the Eup were recorded in the remaining 17.

The following facts revealed by the above facts, namely, documents of the South Korean Won-dong were prepared in order to encourage the members of the local community to make a best call for the election campaign of the South Korean Won-Eup, focusing on the person in charge of the area of the organization, and to make a reply to the members of the Kim Tae-tae to the head of the political party and to cooperate in the future. The documents were delivered to the scheduled Kim Tae-dong to the person who was to receive the report as originally prepared for the purpose of the preparation, and were kept by Kim Tae-tae. Defendant 2, a management official in the organization list, was the person in charge of the organization list, who was the head of the organization, and the person in charge of the remaining Korean Won-dong election, was called before the 16th election campaign before the 7th election campaign, and the above documents were prepared by the person in charge of the organization list, who was the head of the 16th election campaign before the 7th election campaign, and the remaining part of the 17th election campaign to seek an additional contact with the defendant 2, who was in consultation with the defendant 17.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant Kim Tae-tae and Defendant 2 not guilty of all the charges. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal by the prosecutor pointing this out are with merit.

㈏ 피고인 4 및 피고인 9 부분

However, there is no evidence that Defendant 4 or Defendant 9 was jointly processed by Defendant 4 or Defendant 9’s act of participating in the planning of election campaign through the report of the South Korean Won-dong branch on the record. Of the acquittal portion of the lower court as to this part of the facts charged, the part against Defendant 4 and Defendant 9 is just and there is no error in law. The prosecutor’s grounds for appeal on this part cannot be

E. As to Defendant 7’s acquittal of Defendant Kim Tae-tae on the documents

(i) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant Kim Tae-tae, prepared by Defendant 7 at the end of February 2006, kept the documents as stated in the above 2. D. paragraph (d) of the same Article, and attached Nonindicted 3’s phone number to Defendant 7 designated as the person in charge of the area of Chocheon-do and attached it to his work log, and Defendant 7’s act of participating in the election campaign planning in collusion with Defendant 7 by making phone calls to Nonindicted 3.

B. Judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted Defendant 7 of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that Defendant Kim Tae-tae conspiredd with Defendant 7 to participate in the election campaign planning.

【Court Judgment of this Court

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, while keeping the documents of Defendant 7 in the office room prior to the preparation for his election campaign, the documents were attached to the documents by Nonindicted 3 (the father of Defendant 7) on his phone number as the center of “the support for the Kim Jong-tae's area maintenance along with the maintenance of the area of the Chocheon-do North village, Chocheon-do village”, and attached it to his own business site on March 11, 2006, which was the frame before the formation of the organization list was completed, and Nonindicted 3 was called to the person in charge of the area of Chocheon-Eup, the person in charge of the area of Chocheon-do, and the person in charge of the defendant 7, who was the person in charge of the management of the person in charge of the management of the person in charge of the person in charge of the management of the person in charge of the person in charge of the defendant 3. After that, the person in charge of the defendant Kim Tae-tae's election campaign made a call to the defendant on March 17, 2006.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged against the defendant Kim Tae-tae on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is with merit.

F. As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant 6 and Kim Tae-tae on Defendant 6’s telephone data

(i) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 6 and Kim Tae-hwan conspired, from the end of February 2006 to the beginning of March 2006, the above Do governor participated in the planning of an election campaign for Kim Tae-tae, by preparing a telephone data on the list of 30 local history personnel, including the analysis of support for Kim Tae-hwan, and their tendency, including that of 30 local history personnel, from the end of February 2006 to the beginning of March 2006.

B. Judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted Defendant 6 of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is high room to view telephone materials prepared by Defendant 6 as ordinary business reports prepared as part of the Do administration publicity, and thus cannot be deemed as participating in the planning of election campaign.

【Court Judgment of this Court

㈎ 피고인 6 부분

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant 6 prepared and delivered a medal composed of 30 names and five pages with their telephone numbers, positions, and inclinations, etc. under the title of “ telephone data,” and it is the same as “Non-Indicted 21, 21, Do governor, Do governor, and Do governor 22 and Do governor 22, but only one telephone ...” “Non-Indicted 23, 24 former public officials’ denial of telephone, sub-party 25, 25, Do governor 25, Do governor 25, Do governor 27, Do governor 27, Do governor 28, Do governor 28, Do governor 29, and Do governor 30, Do governor 29, and Do governor 30, Do governor 30, etc., which should be included in the plan or election campaign-related personal information of public officials, and which should not be included in the plan or election campaign-related personal information.”

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the charges against Defendant 6 on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is with merit.

㈏ 김태환 부분

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, although the fact that the above telephone data was kept in the office of Kim Tae-hwan is recognized, there is no evidence that Kim Tae-tae directly received the above telephone data or kept it as an intention to use the above telephone data. Therefore, the part concerning defendant Kim Tae-hwan among the part not guilty of the court below as to this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no violation of law. The prosecutor's grounds for appeal on this part cannot be accepted.

G. As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant 5 and Kim Tae-tae on Defendant 5’s Mata

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above defendants 5 guilty of this part of the facts charged as follows: "In collusion with the defendant 5 and Kim Tae-hwan, around February 2006, the above Do governor's office provides the defendant 5 to Kim Tae-hwan with the meri, the organization belonging to six personnel in the field of social welfare, and continuously prepare a list indicating the support of ten personnel in the same field and the influence on the organization belonging to the above organization, etc., and report it to Kim Tae-tae-hwan, and the defendant Kim Tae-hwan entered "the director of the community division," who is the defendant 5's position, who is the plaintiff 5's duty, and attached it to the upper part of the above list and attached it to the list to be used for establishing a plan to efficiently conduct the election campaign for Kim Tae-tae-hwan, and thus, it is hard to view that each above mer was prepared to use it in order to efficiently implement the election campaign for Kim Tae-hwan, and all of the facts charged against the above defendants are not guilty.

The prosecutor's appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

H. As to the grounds for appeal on unreasonable sentencing against Defendant 7

Considering the motive and background of the instant crime and the consequences thereof, and all the conditions that form the basis for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the previous conviction, age, character and conduct, and environment of the said accused, the lower court’s sentence against the said accused cannot be deemed as unreasonable.

The prosecutor's appeal on this point shall not be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the remaining union report, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant Kim Tae, the prosecutor's appeal against the part concerning the defendant Kim Tae-tae and the part concerning the defendant 7 documents, and the prosecutor's appeal against the part concerning the defendant 6 part among the part concerning the defendant Kim Tae-hwan among the part concerning the defendant 7 telephone data, each of them is accepted, and the part concerning the defendant 2, 6, and the defendant Kim Tae-hwan among the judgment below's non-guilty part concerning the defendant 5's election campaign planning as well as the part concerning the non-guilty as to the defendant 5's joint participation in the election campaign planning as to the defendant 4, and all of the remaining part of the judgment below are reversed. Meanwhile, the court below's decision that the defendant 2's participation in the election planning as to the defendant 4's election campaign through the examination of the Namnam case and the part concerning the defendant 4, 2, 4 and 9's participation in the election campaign and the part concerning the defendant 2's participation in the election campaign.

Defendant Kim Tae-tae, as the Governor of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, was employed as Jeju Do Governor from June 27, 2004 to May 8, 2006; Defendant 2, as the Director General of the Audit Committee of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province; Defendant 4, as the Director General of the North Branch of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, worked as Jeju Provincial Office from January 18, 2006 to June 30 of the same year; Defendant 4, as the Director General of the North Branch of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province; Defendant 6, as the Director General of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Director General of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province from August 12, 2005 to June 30, 206; and Defendant 9, as the Director General of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the Director General of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province from August 13, 2005 to June 30, 2006; and Defendant 1 was working as the Director of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

1. Defendant 2 or 9 conspired,

In the office of the Do governor of Jeju-do, which is linked to Jeju-si on February 2, 2006, Defendant 9 shows to Defendant 2 the documents of the title “the case of recommending a person responsible for the area south Nam-do”. Defendant 2 reviewed the above documents and examined the relationship between Nonindicted 31 and Defendant 6, who is a public official belonging to the Jeju-do government office from the Republic of Korea, on the above documents, and presented his opinion to Defendant 6 that he “the relationship between Defendant 6’s senior relatives?” on the above documents, and took part in the planning of an election campaign to replace the documents to the public official.

2. Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 4, and Defendant 9 conspired,

On February 206, at the office of the above Do governor around the end of February 2006, Defendant 4 issued to Defendant Kim Tae-tae to Nonindicted 1; Nonindicted 8; and Nonindicted 11, who was a person in charge of assistance in the field of youth association in the field of management by occupation; Defendant Kim Tae-tae, attached this to his work site and kept it; and notified Defendant 9 of the contents of the above medal to Defendant 9; Defendant 9’s entry into “the person in charge of regional, occupational, special management, and management” (the list); Defendant 9, on March 13, 2006, prepared documents stating the above Kim Tae-do’s Kim Jong-do’s Kim Jong-do’s name to Defendant 4, who was a public official in charge of planning and management by region; Defendant 3, who was a public official in charge of planning and management of Jeju-do’s culture; and Defendant 4, who was a public official in charge of management and improvement by providing the above documents to Defendant 4 for each of the above public official in charge of management and improvement of culture.

3. Defendant 2 and Kim Tae-tae conspired:

Defendant 2, at around 12:00 on March 14, 2006, discussed the organization structure and operational plan for the election campaign, including Nonindicted 16, designated as the person responsible for the organization Eup in the organization chart in the Namwon-gun, Namwon-gun, the organization of which was designated on March 14, 2006. At around that time, Defendant 2 reported to Defendant Kim Tae-tae the documents stating that the above discussion results and the consideration of the Do governor would be disturbed in the office of Jeju Do governor, and reported the above documents to Defendant Kim Tae-tae, the contact information of Nonindicted 17, the former head of the Namwon-gun, the public official participates in the election campaign planning for Kim Tae-tae, and the public official participates in

4. Defendant Kim Tae-tae, in collusion with Defendant 7 who had worked as the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor and the local administrative assistant from August 2002 to June 30, 2006;

On February 31, 2006, in relation to the election of the Do governor on May 31, 2006, Defendant 7 prepared a list of the names attached to Defendant 7 who works in the autonomous administration division, stating the thickness of his father (Nonindicted 3) and prepared for the establishment of the branch for that period. If the establishment of the branch office has so far, the head of the branch office has left the atmosphere to see that the branch office has been frightly supported with the maintenance of the area centering around his father. In particular, in the north village, the head of the Dong-dong branch and the head of the Dong-dong branch and the head of the Dong-dong branch and the head of the Dong-dong branch and the head of the Dong-dong branch will help the branch office to be opened with the general director of the Dong-dong branch. In addition, the documents stating a list of 32 persons who can lead the public opinion of the above region, such as the former head of Chocheon-si, Chocheon-do, who is the origin of Defendant 7, and reported this to Defendant Kim Tae-tae by Defendant Kim by means of his phone.

5. Defendant 6 and Kim Tae-tae conspired:

2006. 2. 말경부터 같은 해 3. 초순경까지 위 도지사 집무실에서 피고인 6은 ‘ 공소외 36, 만나봤는데 지사님께서 전화 한 번 해주시면 적극 뛸 것 같습니다’, ‘ 공소외 37, 지난번 재·보궐 선거 때도 지사님을 많이 도왔던 분. 지사님께서 전화해서 관심을 갖도록 해야 합니다’, ‘ 공소외 38, 지사님에 대한 관심이 많으며 지사님 격려 전화가 필요합니다’ 등 피고인 김태환에 대한 지지 여부 및 성향에 대한 분석이 포함된 제주 남제주군 대정읍 거주 전 남군연합청년회장 공소외 39 등 지역 유력인사 7명의 명단을 기재한 문서를 작성하여 이를 피고인 김태환에게 보고하고, 피고인 김태환은 이를 보고받아 자신의 업무일지에 부착하는 등의 방법으로 보관하면서 명단 중 일부에 표시를 하는 등으로, 공무원이 김태환의 선거운동의 기획에 참여하고,

6. Defendant 6:

From the end of February 2006 to the beginning of March 2, 2006, the above Do governor's office prepared a document stating the list of 30 local genetic personnel, including whether to support the Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do governor's Do

1. Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Defendant 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of Non-Indicted 1, 40, 41, and 36 of the witness of the political party;

1. Among the trial records of the court below 4 through 20 times, the statements by the defendant 9, the witness, the non-indicted 42, the non-indicted 43, the 3, the 11, the 9, the 44, the 45, and the 16 each statement

1. Each part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 10, 11, 9, 44, 45, and 16

1. A written appraisal of Nonindicted 42 prepared

1. Notice of the results of documentary appraisal and a report on the appointment of an accountant in charge at the fourth nationwide local election;

1. Submission of an investigation report (Attachment of telephone conversations details), investigation report (Attachment of telephone conversations details with persons entered in the business territory of the Governor), investigation report (Attachment of relevant data, such as Defendant 4), investigation report (Attachment of related data), representative pocket book in 2005, representative pocket book in 2006, representative pocket book in 2006, and communication (verification of fact-finding), resident inquiry (non-party 1), and the submission of a list of names of the elderly heads (2005, 2006);

1. The business log of Jeju-do (No. 20), the case of recommendation of a person in charge of the area south Nam-do (No. 21), the day report (No. 24, No. 25), the day report (No. 26, Apr. 24, 2006), the day report (No. 26, the day of March 14, 12:00, the current status of a person in charge of the management of each region, function, and special organization (No. 31, No. 32), the defendant 7 who works for the autonomous administration and the telephone (No. 39), the telephone data (No. 39);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment (Defendant Kim Tae, Defendant 2, 4, 6, 9);

Article 255(1)10 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 86(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant Kim Tae, Defendant 2, and 9);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Transfer of Defendant Kim Tae, Defendant 9, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, respectively, aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 3) of the Criminal Act

1. Attraction in a workhouse (Defendant Kim Tae, Defendant 2, 4, 6, 9);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. A provisional payment order (Defendant Kim Tae, Defendant 2, 4, 6, 9);

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

If a public official allows a public official to engage in an act that may affect the election, the public official is highly likely to abuse his/her position and authority to engage in an election campaign for a specific individual, and various information obtained through his/her duties may be used for the election campaign, and there is a concern that his/her subordinate employees may be mobilized for an election campaign. The side effects and side effects of the public official are significant, such as where he/she performs his/her duties in a way favorable to an election campaign for a specific individual or where he/she is able to apply relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, there is a very significant need for a public official’s intervention in the election, and there is also a reason why the instant case may not be less easily viewed. The intervention of a public official is very significant in that the public official’s intervention in the election can only be connected to the public official’s organization, such as reduction in the organization of the public official, and the abolition of personnel affairs, etc. of the public official’s organization, and ultimately, the public official’s participation in the election can not be divided into two or more specific administrative organizations, depending on individual or administrative functions.

1. As to Defendant 2’s act of participating in election campaign planning through Defendant Kim Tae-hwan, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 9’s recommendation of the person responsible for responsible management in collusion, and Defendant 2’s act of participating in election campaign planning in collusion with Defendant Kim Tae-hwan, Defendant 4 in collusion with Defendant 2 and Defendant 9:

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime as seen earlier and there is no evidence to prove the crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence against Defendant Kim Tae and Defendant 4 should be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Meanwhile, Defendant 2 and Defendant 9 should be acquitted, but the conviction of Defendant 2 and Defendant 9 against the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the act of participating in election campaign planning through the review of

2. As to Defendant 2's act of participating in the planning of election campaign by recommending the person in charge and examining the organization list in collusion with Defendant 4, 4 and 9

This part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. As to Defendant 4 and 9's act of participating in the planning of election campaign through Defendant 2's report at South Korean Won-dong, in collusion with Defendant 2 and Kim Tae-tae

This part of the facts charged also constitutes a case where there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

4. As to the fact that Defendant 6’s act of participating in the planning of election campaign in collusion with Defendant 6 in collusion with Defendant 6, by means of telephone data collection

This part of the facts charged also has no evidence to acknowledge it as seen earlier, and thus, the innocence should be pronounced, but it is found that Defendant 6, who is in the relation of a single comprehensive crime, was guilty of an act processed by the act of participating in the election campaign planning through the joint appearance, and thus,

Judges Cho Young-chul (Presiding Judge)