2012Gohap935 Violation of the Public Official Election Act, Political Funds Act

1. A;

2. B

Prosecutions (prosecutions, public trials) and public trials (public trials) before the second time;

Law Firm C, Attorney D (Defendant A)

Attorney E, F (for Defendant B)

February 1, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and Defendant B by imprisonment for a period of six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant A, and for one year for Defendant B from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

3,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

Facts of crime

[Status of Defendant]

Defendant A, with respect to the 19th National Assembly member election implemented on April 11, 2012 as a member of the 17th National Assembly, was a H party candidate from the Busan G G constituency to the H party candidate. Defendant B, as an organization adviser, filed an application for an election of proportional representative members of the H party on March 14, 2012, but did not receive official ceiling.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Defendant A

No one shall receive money, valuables or other property benefits or accept an expression of intent to offer them in connection with the recommendation of any specific person as a candidate by a political party, and in election for public office, he/she shall not receive political funds in connection with the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate

Nevertheless, on January 1, 2012, 31, the Defendant: (a) provided KRW 3 million, i.e., at the request of the Defendant, with B, through a politician located in the Hparty guidance division located in the Defendant and the Defendant’s usual friendly friendly Hparty, to be recommended as a candidate for H party proportional representative National Assembly members in the 19th National Assembly election; and (b) received KRW 3 million from tin.

Then, on February 23, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 10 million,00,000,000 from the Defendant’s office of the Defendant’s election office of the National Assembly member in Busan, as well as the Defendant’s N,O, and P’s request for recommendation as a candidate for proportional representative members of a political party in the 19th election for the 19th National Assembly member, which he was aware of, and immediately thereafter, received KRW 20,000,000 from B with the same request in the remaining state of N,O, and P. In addition, the Defendant received KRW 33,00,000 as a political fund in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate by a political party at the same time as the Defendant received KRW 33,00,000 as a political fund in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate by a political party.

2. Defendant B

No one shall offer, express an intention of offering, or promise to offer money, valuables, or other property benefits concerning the recommendation of any specific person as a candidate by a political party, and in elections for public office, he/she shall contribute political funds related to the recommendation of any specific person as a candidate.

Nevertheless, as in the 19th National Assembly member election, the Defendant asked A to be recommended as a candidate for proportional representative members of H political party at the 19th National Assembly election, and provided KRW 33 million. Accordingly, the Defendant provided 33 million in relation to the political party’s recommendation of a specific person as a candidate to a candidate by a political party, and, at the same time, donated 33 million in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate to a candidate by a political party in an election for public office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness B, Q, N,O, P, R, S, and T;

1. Each legal statement of the witness U and V;

1. Examination protocol (part) of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's office statement (part) against W and X;

1. Inquiries replys to the fact-finding of our bank (Y-name bank account transactions);

1. Written accusation at the center of the Central Line;

1. One copy of the call calls indicated by A and B on March 1, 2012, a detailed statement of entry and withdrawal (NB National Bank AB), a deposit transaction certificate (AB) (AB) and a certificate of deposit transaction (AB), a copy of the table photograph No. 11, a copy of the K hotel account on January 31, 2012, one copy of the K hotel account statement, the currency records of each of the persons involved in the case, and each financial transaction data;

1. Each investigation report [Attachment A’s personal information and election-related data attached, A’s statement attached, A’s bank account (AC) transaction document related to the receipt of illegal political funds of KRW 30 million on February 23, 2012, A’s on-site investigation and related data attached, B’s submission of data to ensure credibility of statements that only A met at the early May 31, 2012, analysis of additional currencies related to January 31, 2012, A and AD, and E verification of the telephone conversations between A and AE, confirmation of the telephone conversations between A and AE members on January 31, 2012, confirmation of the suspect’s call on February 23, 2012, and confirmation of the telephone call between A and A and B at the time of election office’s confirmation on February 23, 2012, and between B and B at the end of March 21, 2012].

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 230(6) and 47-2(1) (a) of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 45(2)5 and 32 subparag. 1 (a) of the Political Funds Act (a point of receiving money or goods related to public administration);

(b) Defendant B: Articles 230(6) and 47-2(1) (a) of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 45(2)5 and 32 subparag. 1 (a) of the Political Funds Act (a point where money and valuables related to public administration are provided)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Code (Punishments prescribed for a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act with heavy quality of crimes)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Determination as to the assertion by the additional collection (Defendant A) of Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Illegal Political Funds, Etc. and his/her defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

Although the defendant had met with B on January 31, 2012, and B, N,O, P on February 23, 2012, there are no fact that he received money from them at the time.

2. Determination

A. As to the receipt of KRW 3 million on January 31, 2012

1) The evidence of this case reveals the following circumstances.

가) B는 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 "H정당으로부터 장애인 국회의원 비례대표 공천을 받기 위해서는 1차적으로 당의 중진들과 관련이 있는 분들을 찾아야 했고, 일단은 평소에 알고 있던 A 전 의원에게 공천과 관련한 도움을 청하려고 하였다. 그래서 이 사건 범행 이전에 전화로 A과 부산에서 만날 약속을 정한 후, 2012. 1. 30.경 처인 AF으로 하여금 Y 명의의 계좌에서 300만 원을 인출해 오도록 하였고, 5만 원권으로 인출된 현금 300만 원이 서류인 것처럼 보이게 하기 위해 띠지에 묶인 돈다발 상태로 이를 일반 서류봉투에 넣었다. 다음날인 2012. 1. 31. Q와 함께 부산으로 출발할 무렵 위 서류봉투를 Q에게 맡겼던 것 같고, 김포공항으로 가 김해공항까지는 항공편으로, 약속 장소인 K호텔까지는 택시를 타고 각 이동한 다음, K 호텔 로비에서 Q로부터 위 서류봉투를 건네받아 코트 안으로 이를 넣어 여미었다. 30분쯤 뒤 A이 도착했고, K호텔 1층 'L' 레스토랑에서 함께 식사를 하게 되었으며, 식사 도중 A에게 '이번 총선에 장애인 비례대표로 나가려고 하는데, H정당에서 공천받을 수 있게 도와달라, 특히 AD 당 대표나 AE 의원을 만나도록 주선해달라'고 하였더니 A이 '알겠다'고 하였다. 또 식사 중 A의 휴대폰으로 전화가 왔는데, A이 'AE 의원한테 지금 전화가 왔다. 좀 조용히 해달라'고 하더니, AE에게 '이번 장애인 비례대표 결정시 저와 상의해야 합니다'라고 말하는 것을 들었다. 식사를 마친 다음, 그 자리에서 A에게 선거에 보태쓰라고 하며 미리 준비한 현금 300만 원이 든 서류봉투를 식당 테이블 위로 내밀었다. 그러자 A이 '밑으로 주세요'라고 해서 다시 식탁 밑으로 서류봉투를 건넸고, A이 이를 당겨 받았다. 이후 식사대금은 내가 미리 맡겨둔 AG 명의의 카드로 Q가 결제하였고, A의 회원카드로 할인을 받기도 하였다. A과 헤어진 다음 지하철을 통해 부산역으로가 KTX를 타고 서울로 올라왔다"고 하여 피고인을 만나게 된 경위, 돈을 마련한 과정, 돈을 건네기까지의 과정 및 주요 대화 내용 등 당시 상황에 관하여 상당히 구체적이고 일관된 진술을 하고 있다.

B) Of the statements in B, it seems that the part of which is somewhat unclear or changed is based on the limit of memory due to the lapse of time, or is merely a scarcity. As to the source of the above 3 million won from the first central line inquiry, B had her bank account in its name withdraw 5 million won in cash, and used 2 million won in personal and the remaining money as a result (Evidence No. 89 of the evidence record). However, it appears that it was difficult to reverse the above statement by having her F withdraw withdraw 3 million won from the account under the name of Y, which was used in its name at the time, in cash, and that it was difficult for B to accurately examine the source of the above 3 million won from the date on which it appears that it was difficult for B to have appeared to have been 100 million won from the date on which it appears that it was 9.281 of the first day after the date on which B had been made a false statement (the date on which B had been made).

C) From January 30, 2012 to this court, the wife AF also released KRW 3 million from B from B to B’s account at the request of the investigative agency, and visited the branch office of the bank located in the bank directly in Korea with the face of KRW 50,000 at the face of KRW 50,000,000. After withdrawing money, the said cash amount of KRW 3,000,000 in the form of being bound by B’s office to be located in B’s office was stored in a single document bag on his/her book and stored in B. It is clearly and consistently stated that the statement on the money sheet, the account number, the amount, and the name column is clearly written.

(AF 4 pages, evidence records, 1 2166 pages, 216).

D) Q, which was accompanied by B, was asked to get off B from B to Busan as of the day immediately preceding the date of the instant occurrence, and was asked to get off B to B until the next day. On the next day, B had a document envelope sent at B’s office, which was well known as having been stored in the said document envelope, and was put into B’s house where the said document envelope was kept. By the time of Kimhae Airport, B was going to go to the taxi from the port of Kimhae Airport to the K hotel, and B was put to the house where B had arrived at the seat of the K hotel, and then, B was sent to B at the house where B had the document envelope changed to the document envelope. Since then, B was sent to the outside box of the K hotel, B was given guidance on the location of a food restaurant in the K hotel, and then B was given to B’s convenience, and B was given up to 3 minutes after his arrival from the K hotel’s hotel.

After a meal was completed, B settled the meal cost with the card that B left in advance. On the road back to Seoul, Q has made a considerable and consistent statement on the current situation at the time of "B thought that it was not able to use the above document envelope," and Q left two months after being employed by B on January 15, 2012, and it was impossible for B to be subject to proportional representation, and it seems that B was in fact subject to notice of dismissal from B, and it is not close to B, and it is difficult to find out the reason or motive to make a false statement in order for the Defendant to be punished.

E) B cannot be deemed to have difficulty in forming an individual relationship with the Defendant prior to the instant crime. However, at the time of the 19th National Assembly member’s proportional representation, B was partially made up to Busan before reaching Busan due to the start of the 19th National Assembly member’s proportional representation for 1 to 2 months, the Hparty AD representative at the time, and the head of the AE Election Planning

The defendant, who was known as having a considerable kind of relationship, did not provide any explanation about the reasons why the two are met (the defendant also stated in the prosecutor's investigation that he was asked by B to help him receive the proportional representation by continuous telephone at that time).

F) On January 30, 2012, the Korean bank inquiry reply that KRW 3 million was withdrawn in cash from the bank account (AH) in the name of Y, and the Defendant, immediately after sending letters to E around 13:07 on January 31, 2012, 13:08, at around 58, 13:08, the phone call statement (Evidence 1,688 pages) between E-A and 58 seconds, etc. are also consistent with the aforementioned statements made by E-A.

G) As to the developments leading up to the instant case, B did not first inform the Defendant of the instant case, but first informed the Defendant of the suspicion of misconduct related to W W’s proportional representation, and during that process, B provided money and valuables to the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s official election. This seems to have been inevitable prior to the instant case, and B did not have any particular malicious testimony against the Defendant (such as B, etc.), it appears that the visually impaired person including B, etc. took a favorable position against the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant made considerable efforts to restore the right of the visually impaired person’s survival after the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality on the system of the visually disabled Madice in 206, on the grounds that it was difficult for the Defendant to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant had made considerable efforts to support the Defendant’s own political motive or competition with the Defendant’s official election without being able to support the Defendant’s own political motive or competition.

H) Other defense counsel asserts that the credibility of the statement of Q was doubtful because it was abnormal that Q did not see the form of the document envelope that A had paid money, or unlike Q’s statement, A raised a question as to the credibility of Q’s statement on the grounds that Q continued in the K hotel even after Q met with B, and that the statement of B received money under the fiduciary’s care is also natural sick by leading the other side of the instant act. However, the above assertion is difficult to accept because it was merely a scam or a scam of the instant crime’s smuggling.

2) Comprehensively considering all the above circumstances, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 3 million from B on January 31, 2012 can be sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, this part of the allegation is not acceptable.

B. As to the receipt of KRW 30 million on February 23, 2012

1) According to each of the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

가) B는 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 "2012. 1. 31. 만남 이후 피고인으로부터는 공천 등과 관련하여 아무런 연락이 없었다. 2012. 2. 16.경 국회의원 공천을 받기 위하여 측근들의 도움을 받을 생각으로, 잘 알고 지내던 지인인 AI협회 N 회장, 위 협회 전 회장 0, AJ 복지관장 P 등과 AI협회 중앙회장실에서 만나 H정당 비례대표 공천 문제에 관하여 논의를 하게 되었다. 당시 공천을 부탁하려면 돈이 필요하다는 말이 나왔고, 각자 형편에 맞게 일정 액수를 분담하기로 하였다. 일단 1,000만 원을 같이 모으기로 했고, 나머지 돈은 내가 따로 준비하는 걸로 이야기가 되었다. 그 후 N이 나에게 전화를 걸어 '1,000만 원을 만들려고 하는데, 200만 원 정도가 부족하니 돈을 송금해라'라고 해서 2012. 2. 22.경 텔레뱅킹으로 200만 원을 N에게 송금해주었다. 따로 마련하기로 한 2,000만 원은 피고인에게 돈을 건네기 전날인 2012. 2. 22.경 처 AF을시켜 내 명의의 우리은행 계좌에서 현금 2,250만 원을 인출하여 그 중 2,000만 원(5만 원권을 띠지로 묶은 500만 원 묶음 4개)을 종전과 같이 서류 봉투에 넣게 하였다. 2012. 2. 23. N, O, P 그리고 그들의 안내자들과 함께 부산 M에 있는 피고인의 지역구 선거사무소에 갔다. 일단 안내자들은 밖에서 대기하고, N, O, P과 함께 선거사무소 내위원장실로 들어가 피고인과 대화를 나누다가 N과 0이 피고인에게 'H정당 장애인 몫의 비례대표로 B가 공천을 받게 해 달라'는 취지로 부탁을 하였다. 그러자 피고인이 'W이 B 회장의 과거 안마시술소 운영 경력에 대하여 문제를 삼고 있으니 이 부분만 해결되면 반드시 도와주겠다. W을 잘 설득해라'라는 취지로 말을 하였고, 대화 도중 '자신은 정권이 바뀌면 장관 등 주요 자리를 맡을 수 있다'는 취지의 말을 하기도 하였다. 대화가 끝나갈 무렵 N이 피고인에게 선거에 보태쓰라면서 미리 준비한 돈 봉투를 전달한 것 같다. 이후 N, O, P이 위원장실을 나갔고, 피고인과 단둘이서 대화를 나누면서 2,000만 원이 든 서류 봉투를 피고인에게 건네자, 피고인은 '잘 쓰겠다'고 하면서 위 서류 봉투를 받았다. 그 후 내가 피고인에게 '이전에 AD 당 대표와 AE 총선기획단장을 비밀리에 만나게 해주겠다고 한 말은 어떻게 되었느냐'고 물었더니, 피고인은 'AD 총리의 비서진을 만나게 해 줄테니 1,000만 원 정도를 준비해라'라고 하였다. 피고인은 또 '공천을 못 받더라도 차후 돈 얘기는 하지 말라'는 취지의 이야기를 하기도 하였다5)"고 하여 당시 돈을 마련하게 된 경위 및 과정, 구체적인 분담액수, 피고인에게 돈이 전달되기까지의 과정 등에 관하여 대체로 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하고 있다.

B) To the same effect as B’s statements, N,O, P, and D were almost identical to B’s statements, the circumstances leading up to preparing KRW 10 million (the contents of conversations between Mannam and Mannam around February 16, 2012), the Defendant’s process up to the election campaign office in Busan District, major dialogues with the Defendant, and N’s major conversations with the Defendant, and the fact that B had first appeared out to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to able to tightly with the Defendant, and it appears that they had not been able to be able to be punished for the provision of money and valuables related to Mancheon as money and valuables, and that they had not been able to able to see the fact that they had not been able to able to see the fact that they had been able to be able to be able to receive from the Defendant on the grounds that they had not been able to receive from the Defendant on the grounds that they had not been able to be able to receive from the Defendant.

C) The N’s statement concerning the creation process of KRW 10 million was deposited in the name of the KB Bank account (Z) with the name of KRW 2 million in the name of the N on February 22, 2012, KRW 1 million in the name of KRW 0,000,000 in the name of the N, and KRW 7,000 in the name of the KB Bank account (AB). On the same day, the said N was remitted from the said N’s bank account to the KB Bank account (AB) in the name of the KB Bank account in the name of the N on the same day, KRW 4 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 4 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 4 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 4 million in the account of the above NB Bank account, and KRW 4 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in the amount of KRW 5 million in Busan.

D) As stated in B, around February 22, 2012, around 11:33, 2012, there was an account transaction (Evidence Record 2:973 pages) with the content that KRW 2,50,000 was withdrawn from the bank account (AC) under the name of B, and the wife AF, from the investigation agency to this court, sought KRW 22,50,000 from B in cash from February 22, 2012 to this court. Upon receipt of the request from the investigation agency to find KRW 2,50,000,000,000,000,000 won was withdrawn from the bank to the office of B, and the immediate withdrawal from the bank to the office of B, 50,000,000 won was withdrawn from the bank, 5,000,000 won, total of KRW 4,20,000,000,000,000,00).

E) Prior to the arrival of the Defendant on February 23, 2012 into Busan, N,O, etc. told the Defendant to the effect that, at the time of having discussed with B on the H party nomination of the AI Association, N, etc., they would offer separate money to the Defendant for the lack of 10 million won as multiple persons gather, even though they did not talk about specific amount, (8 pages of the protocol of examination of the witness with N, and eight pages of the protocol of examination of the witness);

F) At the end of January 2012, the Defendant stated that, “Around February 3, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 2 million from X, who was a volunteer of the election campaign office (Evidence Record 3: 1775, 1782, 1782), and on February 3, 2012, U demanded a loan of money by borrowing money from U as much as possible while she was able to gather and gather election expenses for her own.” (Evidence Record 3:30,00,000 won from V, 200,000 won from March 30, 2012, 200, 300,000 won from V, and 30,000 won from April 3, 2012, and 13,000,000 won for election campaign.”

(g) Other circumstances;

(1) 변호인은 2012. 2. 16. B, N, O, P의 통화내역상 발신기지국 위치 자료 등을 근거로 당일 위 4인이 서울 서초구에 위치한 AI협회 중앙회장실에 있을 수는 없다고 보이므로 2012. 2. 23. 피고인에게 돈을 건넸다는 진술들 역시 허위일 가능성이 높다고 주장한다. 그러나 이 사건이 발생한 지 약 6개월이라는 상당한 시간이 경과한 후에야 관련 진술이 이루어졌고, 어느 누구도 해당 모임 날짜 등을 메모해 두거나 하지는 않았던 것으로 보이는바, 위와 같은 모임의 날짜는 추측에 기하여 특정되었을 것으로 보이고, 발신기지국 위치 자료 내역상 2012, 2. 16.이 아닌 인접한 다른 날짜에 그러한 모임이 있었을 가능성을 배제하기 어렵다고 할 것이다(위 통화내역 자료를 살펴보면 2012. 2. 14. 오후 무렵, 위 네 사람이 서울 서초구 부근에 있었던 것으로 나타나고 있기도 하다). 나아가 만약 이들이 처음부터 사건을 치밀하게 조작하려고 하였다면, 모임이 있었던 날짜를 처음부터 애매하게 진술하거나 객관적 자료 등에 부합하게 서로 입을 맞추었을 가능성이 높다고 보인다.

(2) In addition, the defense counsel argued that if B’s delivery of money as stated in the facts charged in the instant case to B is true, it would have been demanded that B met the Defendant on March 1, 2012 at the point of time when B was known that he supported W, or return money to the Defendant upon his withdrawal from Gongcheon, and that B did not receive money, it would be a counter-proof that the Defendant did not receive money, or that as at February 23, 2012, even though the Defendant made a negative statement about B’s past criminal punishment, it would not have a formal sense that B’s request for money was made on behalf of the Defendant while 30 million won was made to the Defendant.

First of all, with respect to the first argument that "A" did not receive money from the defendant, even if March 1, 2012, "B" did not request money from the defendant to return money, it would be likely that the defendant's appraisal would be at the time when B did not receive the application for money from the defendant, and would be at a disadvantage in the examination of Gongcheon by openly opening the defendant's appraisal, and it would be difficult to sell money from the above person, and even if it did not go to return money after going to the Gongcheon, it would be hard to say that the statement is sufficiently acceptable in light of the situation at the time of B or the transfer relation with the defendant (the defendant did not request money from the defendant to the defendant with the influence of his Gongcheon and did not request money from the defendant first, but rather, it appears that B did not return money from the election to the defendant with the idea that he would get assistance from the defendant by actively approaching the defendant, and even if there was no mutual agreement on Gongcheon, it seems that it did not return money from the theory).

Next, in relation to the latter's assertion, it appears that at the time of February 23, 2012, the defendant had expressed W while discussing the history of punishment for violation of the Act on Prevention of Prostitution, etc. in the past. However, in the following dialogue process, it seems that the 0 and P et al. were merely a place of living of the visually impaired, and it seems that they had responded to this point. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, it appears that the 10 million won at the time includes some of the characteristics of sponsoring the defendant, which was already included in the 10 million won at the time, there was an agreement with the defendant to dry money in advance, not the purport that the defendant's speech is difficult in a conclusive manner, but that it is the purport that the defendant would have resolved the problem by gaining W. In light of the above, it seems that there was a possibility that the defendant still had made a little negative penation in B's official document (such as above, it may have been doubtful at the time of such a statement).

(3) Other defense counsel's arguments are merely about the minor changes in N or B's statements or merely about the scarcity portion, and thus, they cannot be able to determine the credibility of each of the above statements.

2) In full view of all the above circumstances, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from B, etc. on February 23, 2012 is also sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, this part of the allegation is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Receiving money related to the recommendation of a candidate for a political party in an election for public office of Defendant A through democratic procedures inside the political party by getting a political party to exercise influence over the right of gold from the stage of recommending the candidate;

It is necessary to strictly punish the members of various social groups because they are deprived of opportunities to be recommended as candidates for political parties by concentrating those who have the opportunity to recommend as candidates for political parties in the election of public officials, such as making it impossible for them to recommend candidates due to free and reasonable decision-making, and thereby hindering the development of genuine representative democracy that represents the will of the people.

In relation to the election of the 19th National Assembly member, the Defendant received a total of KRW 33 million from B on two occasions on the pretext of public solicitation, and received a contribution of political funds related thereto. In light of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act, etc., the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed with significant nature of the crime, the amount of money received, and the Defendant did not have much influence on Gongcheon in the process of receiving money from B, etc., and the Defendant seems to have been subject to his influence on Gongcheon in the process of receiving money from B, etc. However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s personnel from the prosecutor to the 19th National Assembly member from the prosecutor to the court are gathering false facts, it is reasonable to strictly punish the Defendant, taking into account the fact that he did not seem to have any anti-discrimination light while denying his criminal act.

However, the defendant is not deemed to have actively demanded money and valuables related to 10 million won prepared by B along with N, etc., the nature of support for the defendant is also included in B's 10 million won, which seems to not have any particular influence on B's election result due to fall from the examination stage of documents, and it seems that B did not engage in any specific behavior to influence B's success favorable to B after receiving the above money. The defendant was seen to have been active in promoting human rights by overcoming the environment difficult to the defendant, contributing to the enactment of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities and Protection of Rights, etc. at the 17th National Assembly member's service, and it appears to have been active in order to promote human rights of persons with disabilities, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

2. Defendant B stated that in relation to the election of the 19th National Assembly member, Defendant B provided KRW 33 million to the representative of H political party and the president of the General Planning Group on two occasions in order to be elected as proportional representative members of the H party, and contributed political funds related thereto. Such an act is poor in the nature of the crime, and actively attempted to provide money and valuables to A, without a lot of money provided, and the Defendant tried to offer money and valuables to A. If the H political party representative and the president of the General Planning Group were to meet at the time of the 19th National Assembly member election, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant A in light of the following: (a) the act is likely to have been prepared in advance for money necessary for it; and (b) the Defendant stated that he tried to provide money more than the future.

However, the judgment is delivered with the order, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant was aware of his mistake and reflects in depth; (b) the fact that he was informed of anonymous informants; (c) the accused voluntarily surrenders to the front line after the accident; and (d) there appears to have been active cooperation in the prosecution investigation; and (c) the Defendant was deprived of money from the Defendant for reasons of past criminal records at the early stage of the public examination; and (d) the Defendant appears to have never had any substantial impact on the election of the instant crime on the grounds that he was deprived of criminal records at the early stage of the public examination; (b) the Defendant was suffering from visual disorder after the age of 16; (c) however, the Defendant was tryed to overcome this and to guarantee the rights of the visually disabled and to promote their welfare; (d) social service activities are deemed to have been many; and (e) there were no criminal records exceeding fines; and (e) all the sentencing conditions indicated in

The presiding judge and the judge;

Judges Unauthorizedd Judge

Judges or commercialia

1) below, the term "defendant" in this item is abbreviationd.

2) B appears to have reversed B’s statement after August 19, 2012 at the first highest court’s order, and around August 24, 2012 (Evidence No. 129 pages).

3) Q does not perform B until the end of the commitment after completing his testimony in this Court, and leaves the court first.

had been.

4) Considering that B is the visually disabled, it is possible that he/she continued to possess a document envelope containing money in his/her clothes.

It is difficult to exclude.

5) At the time, B entered the document bags containing the said money in a bank, and on February 23, 2012, B added a little amount than A4.

T’s statement that sees that large size of mark-booming bags are contained (4 pages for the examination of witnesses of T) and above B

The same conforms to such statements.

6) N said that “N left the Defendant with a bag containing KRW 10 million from the bank, in which it read that “N left the bag above the table,” and this is also applicable.

“I talk in advance,” and at the time, the so-called “Slue” seems to be a sense of delivering money to the Defendant, even if the envelope is blick.

P makes a statement to the same effect.

7) P was responsible for the president of the AL School Dongbook at the time of “P,” and the same sentence is given to B, a member of the same family council, for the purpose of enabling B to have proportional representation.

Although it was thought that 2 million won has been spent from membership fees, it is difficult for AM, an executive officer of the same Council, to do so in the budget of the same literature council, and only 1 million won.

The reason is that "AK, the finance officer of the Dongmun-gu Council, has transferred KRW 1 million to N," and the reason is that the N is that it is called "the request to support only Won."

specifically stated on the record (Evidence No. 1,384, 1, 1384)