Defendant

Freeboard

Attorney Creditway

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

In the facts charged of this case, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the restriction on contribution act is acquitted.

The defendant was a preliminary candidate for the 4th local election for the Gyeongsan nutrition Gun, who is currently the head of the Gyeongbuk-do Gun;

1.No person may visit door to door for an election campaign:

At the end of July 2005, Non-Indicted 1’s house located in the Gyeongbuk-gun (detailed address omitted) and visited Non-Indicted 1 for the purpose of election campaign as shown in the annexed Table of Crimes, as the defendant complained of support to the defendant who wishes to be a candidate for the 4th local election nutrition troupe election because of Non-Indicted 1’s expression “I will come to go to the Gun. I want to go to the Gun.” At this same time, I want to go to the Gun of nutrition,” and then, during the period from around that time to May 2006, I visited the residents living in the Gyeongbuk-gun for each house for the election campaign, as shown in the annexed list of crimes;

2. No person shall offer, express an intention to offer, or promise to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign regardless of the pretext;

On May 206, in the election office of the defendant, located on the first floor of the Gyeongsung-Eup (Shob omitted), the first floor of the defendant's election office located in the Gyeongsung-Eup (Shob omitted), proposed to the effect that "I will cooperate to the extent that I would like to repair the YY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY YY Y YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY YY

[Fact 1]

1. Statements corresponding thereto in part by the defendant in this court;

1. Statement corresponding to Non-Indicted 17’s statements in this Court

1. The statement statement prepared by the prosecutor with Nonindicted 17, a copy of the statement prepared by the prosecutor, corresponding thereto;

1. Each statement written by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 17, 2, 3, 4, 21, and 1 of the prosecutor’s preparation of each statement corresponding thereto;

[Judgment of the court below]

1. A statement in this court that there is the time and place stated in the facts charged that there was the entry of Nonindicted 8 in connection with the election of Defendant 8

1. Each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 8’s suspect prepared by the prosecutor, which corresponds to this;

1. The statement corresponding thereto among the certified copy of the examination protocol of Nonindicted Party 6 on the witness of this Court (Case Number omitted) case (combined).

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Point of door-to-door visit: Articles 255 (1) 17 and 106 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, inclusive;

(b) The point of offering or expressing intent to offer money or goods related to election campaigns: Articles 230 (1) 4 and 135 (3) of the Public Official Election Act;

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Punishment for Violation of Public Official Election Act due to Provision or Declaration of Intention of Provision of Money or Valuables Related to Election Campaign, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Aggravation of Punishment)

Although the defendant and his defense counsel stated the statement that the defendant would assist him in connection with the election of Nonindicted 8, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that there is no fact of offering money or goods to Nonindicted 8 as stated in the judgment No. 2.

Therefore, the Defendant consistently denies the above facts of crime from the investigative agency to the present court, and the indicted charges (this court (case number omitted) for receiving money and valuables from the Defendant (this court (Case No. 8) also denies the crime by consistently denying the Defendant’s receipt of money and valuables from the investigative agency, on the contrary that Nonindicted 8 did not accept the offer of money and valuables from the Defendant or the expression of intent to offer such money and valuables.

Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there are Nonindicted 6’s statements at the prosecutor’s office and court (this Court (case number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply), Nonindicted 22’s prosecutor’s office and court. First of all, each of the Nonindicted 22’s statements is hearsay evidence and is not admissible according to the provisions of Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and no other evidence exists, such as financial materials that support the above part of the facts charged, the evidence corresponding to the above facts charged is only Nonindicted 6’s statements, and thus, the following is examined as to the credibility of the statement.

Nonindicted 6 entered Nonindicted 8’s office and court. Nonindicted 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the above walk Nonindicted Party 8’s walk to the Defendant’s walk to the end.

On the other hand, Nonindicted 8 stated at the prosecution that “If Nonindicted 6 made a false statement at the office of the Defendant, Nonindicted 6 did not appear to have been aware of the fact that he had been given a false statement with Nonindicted 6, and that 4 persons, including himself, entered the office of this case.” In light of the fact that Nonindicted 6 had been given a false statement at the time of the Defendant’s criminal investigation agency, it was difficult to view that Nonindicted 6 had been given a false statement to the effect that he had been given a false statement to the effect that he could not give or receive any money or valuables only once because he would put his name on the market.” In light of the fact that Nonindicted 6 had been given a false statement at the time of this case’s criminal investigation, it was consistent with Nonindicted 6’s first statement with Nonindicted 6’s criminal investigation agency, and that Nonindicted 6 had been given a false statement at the time of this case’s criminal investigation, it was difficult to find that there was any motive for Nonindicted 6 to receive money or valuables from the Defendant’s first time.

Therefore, in addition to the above statements made by Nonindicted 6 and the Defendant and Nonindicted 8, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the facts set forth in the judgment of this case.

Although the Defendant was a first offender without any previous conviction, the crime of this case was committed on the following grounds: (a) a door-to-door visit, which is prohibited by the Public Official Election Act in relation to the fourth local election, and (b) an expression of intent to offer money and valuables in connection with the election, and (c) the offer of money and valuables, which would seriously undermine the fairness and integrity of the election; and (b) the Defendant appears to have had a significant impact on the above election by being elected as the head of the Gun with the minor difference from the above election to the 195 list; and (c) in consideration of the fact that the instant investigation process denies the crime up to the trial process and did not repent his mistake, the sentence shall be determined as per Disposition.

1. Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to door-to-door visits to Nonindicted 5

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that "the defendant was a preliminary candidate for the fourth local election, who was a candidate for the fourth local election for the Gyeongbuk Nutrition, and was visiting each door for the election campaign by finding himself in the high field of Non-Indicted 5 near the Gyeongbuk-gun (Seongcheon-gun omitted) around 16:00 at the end of April 206."

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant appealed to support the non-indicted 5 at the above date, time, and place, but the non-indicted 5's ancient field is located considerably far away from his home and does not constitute a "title" that is prohibited from visiting under the Public Official Election Act.

A door-to-door visit is prohibited under the Public Official Election Act because it damages the candidate's dignity, it is easy for the elector to make the elector cast his vote, and there is a risk that the candidate might attract illegal and unlawful elections, such as the purchase of voting, by using the elector in an open place. The place of door-to-door visit prohibited under the above Act is not always limited to the elector's house building in the election concerned, but at least the place of door-to-door visit is the one in which the elector was visited. The above scope of door-to-door visits should be determined with a purpose by sufficiently examining whether there is a need to prevent various harm in door-to-door visits.

Therefore, according to the statements in the health belt, the prosecutorial office of Nonindicted 5, and the record of the inspection of this court and the statement in the records of this court, the old field of this case was coming from the house gate of Nonindicted 5 to the road of about 5 meters in width and crossing the road of about 7 meters in width. The size of the road is about 1,700 square meters in width, and the field is located in the turbly. At the same time, Nonindicted 5 is working in the above old field with five neighboring residents, etc., and the defendant coming from the above high field was coming from the side of the old field of the road of this case. In light of the fact that the above place from the above place to the apartment 5 meters in a straight line, the degree of about 50 meters in width and about 10 meters in width and about 10 meters in width, the defendant's dry field and the adjacent dry field of the Public Official Election Act cannot be acknowledged as being open to the public.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to door-to-door visits in the judgment related to the crime

2. Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to violation of restrictions on contribution acts;

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is as follows: “The defendant is not entitled to make a contribution to the person in the constituency concerned, but the person wishing to be a candidate is in collusion with Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 18, the spouse of the defendant, who is a public official of the National Nutrition Office, to contribute money to the Dadong Women Hospital located in Ansan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu.”

B. As to the primary facts charged, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no fact between the Defendant and Nonindicted 11 on the day of the instant case, and therefore, Nonindicted 11 did not in collusion with the Defendant, as in the instant facts charged, that there was no fact that the envelope containing money to Nonindicted 15 was opened. Next, as to the ancillary facts, Nonindicted 16 was only Nonindicted 16, a person who was accompanied with the Defendant on the day of the instant case, and Nonindicted 16 did not turn the envelope containing money to Nonindicted 15, and there was no fact that there was no fact that another woman under the name of Nonindicted 15, who did not appear together with the Defendant, did not bring the envelope containing money to Nonindicted 15, and all of the crimes were denied.

C. First, the date and time as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and the evidence that Nonindicted 11 gave Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 15 the envelope containing money at the place, there are Nonindicted 9 and 10’s respective statements in the prosecutor’s office and in this court, and Nonindicted 25’s statements and investigation reports in the prosecutor’s office (as indicated in title 6, title 214, and page 252 of the investigation record). Of Nonindicted 25’s statements in the prosecutor’s office, the contents corresponding to the said facts charged are the parts of the statements made by Nonindicted 9 at the Nutrition Election Commission, and each of the above investigation reports are also proved by Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 10’s photographs prepared by the Nutrition Election Commission by Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 11. Accordingly, each of the statements made by Nonindicted 9 and 10 is supported by the said facts charged. Accordingly, they are examined as to the credibility of each of them.

At the prosecutor's office and this court, when the defendant was located in the above hospital No. 501, Nonindicted 9 found in the above hospital No. 10 with Nonindicted 18 and 11. At the time the defendant divided his body with Nonindicted 15 and personnel with Nonindicted 14's mother on the sick room, Nonindicted 18 and 11 did not enter the hospital, and they reported that Nonindicted 11 had his body outside the hospital No. 15 inside the hospital, and the defendant sent an envelope No. 18 and 16's cell phone No. 6's cell phone No. 10 to the above hospital No. 10, and it was confirmed that the defendant and the 15's cell phone No. 6's bar No. 6's cell was the same as that of the above hospital No. 18 and 11, and that the defendant's cell No. 1 and the 14's cell phone No. 6's cell were changed from the above hospital No. 96's own view that the above women No. 1 and the defendant No. 1's house No. 6.

Meanwhile, at the prosecutor's office and this court, Nonindicted 10 and this court found two times with Nonindicted 18 and 11 on the day of the instant case at the sick room. At the first time, Nonindicted 10 did not come to the sick room because Nonindicted 14, 15 et al. left the sick room, and found it again in the said sick room. At the time, Nonindicted 10 was seated with Nonindicted 9 and reported television in the said sick room, but all of the Defendant, Nonindicted 18, and 11 moved to the sick room in the form of surrounded by Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 11, 11, was waiting for the said elevator room, and 9, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 15, following Nonindicted 1, 200 to the prosecution, following Nonindicted 1’s testimony, and 9, 3.

Therefore, the health team, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10 stated different statements on the day of the instant case: (a) the Defendant, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 11 appeared to have opened an envelope containing the said money at the same time on the day of the instant case; (b) whether the Defendant, Nonindicted 18, and 11 appeared in the sick; and (c) whether Nonindicted 11 took money in any way to Nonindicted 15; and (d) whether the elevator was on the fifth floor of the said hospital’s daily operation with the Defendant’s daily operation. Furthermore, as seen earlier, Nonindicted 9 specifically memoryd all the process from the time of the instant hospital to the time of leaving the said hospital, until Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 16, who was first aware of the fact that the Defendant and Nonindicted 16 was not on the day of the instant case’s first time, but did not appear to have been aware of whether Nonindicted 5’s elevator was on board, whose clearly what Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 10 were on the day of the instant statement.

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to accept Nonindicted Party 1’s statement by Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 4, and Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 1, and Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 5, and Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 5, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 1, and Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 5, Nonindicted Party 1, and Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 2, and Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 2, and Nonindicted Party 4, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 2, and Defendant 1, Nonindicted Party 2, who was 3, were at the time of the election of the Defendant.

D. In addition, the prosecutor asserts that even if a woman, who was accompanied by the Defendant, was not the Defendant’s wife Nonindicted 11, a woman, who was accompanied by the Defendant, was accompanied to the Ansan Women Hospital on the day of the instant case, accompanied by the Defendant, and was not the Defendant’s wife, the Defendant’s non-indicted 11, it is nothing more than the fact that the Defendant’s non-indicted 15’s envelope containing money, and thus, this part of the charges should be found guilty.

However, as seen in the facts charged above, the prosecutor's arguments cited as evidence corresponding to the aforementioned ancillary facts are also deemed to be only Nonindicted 9 and 10 as seen in the main facts charged. For the same reason, it is difficult to acknowledge credibility of each of the above statements. There is no other evidence to prove the above facts charged (the prosecutor stated that a female in the name unresting statement accompanied by the defendant in the ward together with the defendant showed an envelope containing money to Nonindicted 15, and on the premise that the above two females were not Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 16, the prosecutor argued that he was accompanied by the defendant. As the defendant stated in the above statement that the female in the ward together with the defendant was not Nonindicted 16, not Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 10, it is difficult to deem that there is no reasonable evidence to support the above facts charged. In addition, it is also difficult to deem that there is no other sufficient evidence to prove that there is no other sufficient room for deliberation.

E. If so, the main and ancillary facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judge Long-Term Circuit (Presiding Judge) Notarial decoration