[1] The meaning of "persons who have relations with the electors" under Article 113 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, which prohibits the act of contribution by candidates, etc.

[2] The meaning of "the election day", which is the starting date of the statute of limitations for the short term under the main sentence of Article 268 (1) of the Public Official Election Act (=the voting day for an election directly related

[1] Articles 113(1) and 257(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Articles 257(1)1 and (2), and 268(1) of the Public Official Election Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7087 Decided December 21, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 243) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4512 Decided September 6, 2007 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3026 Decided August 25, 2006

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Law Firm Pyeong et al. (LLC)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2018No411 decided January 31, 2019

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act prohibits a person who is located in the relevant constituency and a person who has relations with the electorates even if outside the relevant constituency, from making an act of donation to the electorates. Here, the term “persons who have relations with the electorates” means those who have a certain blood-related or personal relationship with the electorates, such as family members, relatives, family members, family members, family members, members of the workplace, persons who are superior to the electorates, and persons who are in a relationship with the electors in question, which may directly or indirectly affect the decision-making of the electorates, regardless of the reason for having relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7087, Dec. 21, 2006).

In addition, the main text of Article 268(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "the prescription of a public prosecution against any crime under this Act shall expire six months after the relevant election day (six months after the relevant act was committed in the case of a crime committed after the election day)." The term "the relevant election day" refers to the voting day for the election directly related to the relevant election crime. Thus, since it is deemed that the election crime was committed before the relevant election day, and it shall be deemed that the commencement date of the short-term public prosecution against such election crime was made after the relevant election day or that the election crime was committed after the relevant election day, and whether the commencement date of the short-term public prosecution against such crime is determined depending on whether the election crime was committed in connection with an election before or after the relevant election day (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3026, Aug. 25, 20

2. The lower court determined as follows on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

A. The act of Defendant 1’s offering a total of KRW 50 million to Defendant 2 constitutes a contribution act as “an act of offering money to a person in the relevant constituency or to a person who is outside the relevant constituency, even if such person is outside the relevant constituency,” under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and cannot be deemed as merely an act of making a contribution to jointly establish a non-indicted stock company. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized Defendant 1’s offering a total of KRW 50 million to Defendant 2 as a contribution act restricted under Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act is justifiable.

B. As to Defendant 1’s contribution act prohibited under Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act as a local council member, the decision on the completion of the statute of limitations ought to be made on June 13, 2018 based on the voting day of Dong local government election. Therefore, it is justifiable for the first instance court to have determined the statute of limitations based on the voting day of Dong local government election on June 13, 2018.

3. Of the grounds of appeal, the assertion disputing the determination of the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of the determination of the lower court’s evidence selection and probative value, which is the fact-finding court. Furthermore, even if the reasoning of the lower judgment is examined in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to a contribution act and statute of limitations under the Public Official Election Act, a person in the relevant constituency, or a person who has relations with the electorate, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-soo (Presiding Justice)