[1] The meaning of door-to-door visit as a constituent element of the crime of door-to-door visit under the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the number of such crimes (=general crime)

[2] The meaning of "house-to-house visit" subject to door-to-door visit in the crime of door-to-door visit and the criteria for determining such door-door visit

[3] The case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete deliberation, which held that the defendant, who was going out of the election of the head of a regional agricultural cooperative head, could be seen as a "farmer" which appears to be an orchard of sublime in order to appeal support, constitutes a prohibited visit under the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act

[1] Articles 172(2) and 50(2) of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 9761 of Jun. 9, 2009) stipulate a person who intends to become an officer as an illegal election campaign and punishs a person who visits a cooperative member door for an election campaign during the period stipulated by the articles of association as an illegal election campaign. The crime of door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door space between each door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door and the same day and door door door door door door door door door door door door. Thus, in order to continuously door door door door door door door door door door door, each door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door is a comprehensive relation.

[2] A door-to-door visit subject to a door-to-door visit is not limited to a door-to-door in daily life, but may correspond to a wide range of places where the free access of the general public is not open to the public, a place for business, etc., or a place attached thereto. The specific issue should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the legislative intent of a door-to-door visit to prevent unlawful and unlawful promotion of election, such as the purchase of voting at a place that has not been open to the public for election campaign, and the protected legal interest, such as whether a house or office building exists, the structure of the place, the relation of use, the public nature of the place, and the specific form of control and management by the union members.

[3] The case holding that the judgment of the court below, which held that the defendant, who was going out of the election of the head of a regional agricultural cooperative, was prohibited from visiting under the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 9761 of Jun. 9, 2009), was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and incomplete hearing, inasmuch as there were no data to accurately ascertain whether the "farmer", which appears to be an orchard of sublime who visited in order to appeal for support, is not a residential area, but a place which is open to the general public for free access, whether it is a place for business, etc., or whether it is a attached place

[1] Articles 50(2) and 172(2)1 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 9761 of Jun. 9, 2009); Article 37 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 50(2) and 172(2)1 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 9761 of Jun. 9, 2009) / [3] Articles 50(2) and 172(2)1 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 9761 of Jun. 9, 2009)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do937 delivered on June 14, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1740) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do889 Delivered on June 13, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1564) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2191 Delivered on July 12, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1326)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Dan et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2009No1875 Decided December 4, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to offering money and valuables

The reason why a candidate for the election of executive officers of a local agricultural cooperative under the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 9761 of Jun. 9, 2009) paid KRW 50,000 in excess of the amount prescribed by the Agricultural Cooperatives Act with a marriage incentive for members of the cooperative was the answer to the same amount of incentives received from members at the time of a candidate's own marriage (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do983, May 25, 199). However, it does not violate social norms as a good custom (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do983, May 25, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant as a candidate for the election of executive officers of local agricultural cooperatives guilty of this part of the facts charged as to the act of providing money exceeding the ordinary limits by providing 300,000 won in cash to 6 members of the association, such as providing money by giving 10,000 won in cash to the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 1 of the association members, attending the marriage ceremony of non-indicted 2 of the association members, and providing 50,0

In light of the above legal principles, relevant statutes, and records, such determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality in violation of the legal principles as to the provision of money and valuables under the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act or the empirical rule

2. As to door-to-door visit

Articles 172(2) and 50(2) of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act stipulate an act of visiting members of a cooperative door for election campaign during the period stipulated by articles of association as an illegal election campaign and punish them. The crime of door-to-door visits is established by continuously visiting two or more units of houses (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do937, Jun. 14, 2002). In order to continuously visit door-to-door visits, each unit-door visits must have a certain degree of time and distance between each unit-to-door visits, but they must have a same time and opportunity. Thus, the time and time of the relevant election campaign period, the details and place of door-to-door visits, time, relationship with residents, etc., and it is recognized that two or more members of a cooperative door-to-door visits have continued to be established for the purpose of a single election campaign, and each act of door-to-door visits recognized as having continuity should be limited to the general public’s daily relation or the general residential relation with each unit-to-door visits.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty on June 14:00 of the first order of 208, the defendant visited the house of non-indicted 3, the members of the cooperative located in the Domdong-gun (detailed address omitted) located in the Domdong-gun (detailed address omitted) in order to assist in the election of the head of the cooperative. On July 4, 2008, the court below found the non-indicted 4's house located in the same military Domam (detailed address omitted) and the non-indicted 5's act of visiting the members of non-indicted 5, the members of the cooperative located in the same military Domdong-si located in the same military Domdong-gun located in the Domdong-gun on July 10, 2008, and found that each of the above crimes is concurrent crimes.

However, such judgment of the court below is hard to accept in light of the above legal principles.

First, as long as the act of door-to-door visits in this case is for a single election campaign, the continuity between door-to-door visits is recognized, all of them are in the relation of a single crime. Nevertheless, the judgment below aggravated concurrent crimes by deeming the act of door-to-door visits in this case as concurrent crimes. In so doing, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the constituent elements of the crime, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary

Next, among the act of door-to-door visit in this case, it appears that the above ○○ 5’s member visited the above ○○ 5 on July 10, 2008 was not a residence of Non-Indicted 5, and the above ○ 5’s member was an orchard on record, and there is no evidence to accurately ascertain whether the above ○ ○ 300 member was a place open to the general public for free access, a place for business, etc., or a place attached thereto. Thus, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of door-to-door visit without taking into account the above ○ 300 won’s size, office building or fence, structure and use relation, road connection, and other surrounding circumstances, and the specific control and management form of Non-Indicted 5’s above ○ 5’s member on the above ○ 3000 won. Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of door-to-door visit.

As a result of a legitimate hearing, if part of the facts constituting an act of door-to-door visit is not recognized as guilty and the facts constituting the remaining guilty are recognized as a single comprehensive crime not concurrent crimes, the facts constituting the conditions for sentencing should be reversed. In such a case, the points of door-to-door visit should be reversed. This part of the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to the facts constituting an act of offering each money and goods recognized as guilty and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the entire reversal of the judgment

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)