[1] In a case where a political person exists only in the form of a supporters' association to the extent that it can be deemed that the political person actually manages the supporters' association, whether the political fund contributed to the supporters' association can be deemed as having been contributed by the political person (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where the representative director of a fixed company made a donation to a certain member of the National Assembly with respect to the affairs in which public officials are in charge and in which the employees of a company having no knowledge of such fact made a donation to the above member's supporters' association, the above employees are liable for an indirect crime against the act of donation by the above employees

[1] Considering the legislative purport of the Political Fund Act, which provides that a person who violates this provision shall not contribute or receive political funds in relation to the solicitation or mediation of affairs in which a person is in charge of the affairs of the management and administration of a supporters' association, if at least there is only a formal form of a supporters' association to the extent that it can be deemed that the political person actually manages the supporters' association in light of the organization, management status, etc. of the supporters' association, even though the political fund was contributed to the supporters' association with the support fund of the supporters' association and the supporters' association had been contributed to the politician, the political person shall be deemed to have received political funds.

[2] The case holding that in a case where the representative director of a fixed company made a donation to a certain member of the National Assembly with respect to the affairs in which public officials are in charge and in which the employees of a company having no knowledge of such fact made a donation to the above member's supporters' association, the above employees shall be liable for an indirect crime against the act of donation by the above employees

[1] Articles 32 subparag. 3 and 45(2)5 of the Political Funds Act / [2] Articles 32 subparag. 3 and 45(2)5 of the Political Funds Act, Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jong-soo

Attorneys Kim Young-young et al.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A sentence to Defendant 1 shall be suspended.

5,600,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Defendant 1 is the 17th National Assembly member belonging to the 17th National Assembly member belonging to the Republic of Korea, which consists of the Western and Taean area as a local constituency, and Defendant 2 is the representative director and the chairman of the E-OL corporation (hereinafter referred to as “E-OL”);

1. Defendant 1, notwithstanding that no person is entitled to receive a contribution of political funds with respect to solicitation or mediation with respect to the duties in charge and handling by a public official,

On August 205, 200, Defendant 2, who was difficult to select the site for the second factory in Saudi Arabia, at the request of Nonindicted Party 2, was recommended as the site for the second factory. On August 22, 2005, he would be able to discuss the plan for the construction of the factory site and the factory between Nonindicted Party 1 and Defendant 2 by arranging to hold a meeting at the market site for the second factory. On September 23, 2005, he would be 00 if he received an order from Nonindicted Party 2 for the first time to change the use of the new factory site and the factory site to the effect that he would have received an order from Nonindicted Party 2 for the second time, and that he would have received an order from Nonindicted Party 2 to cooperate with the Defendant 2 on the first time in the city planning that he would have received a large amount of 0-day change of the new factory site and the new factory site to the effect that he would have to promptly change the business plan for the second time.

Defendant 1's office and supporters' association office located in Seomun-gu, Seomun-dong (hereinafter omitted) around December 7, 2005 in the sense that Defendant 2 requested the above good offices to mediate for solving the problems such as the above alteration of the urban planning in relation to the establishment of the second factory in Seo Seo-si, Seomun-si to the Mayor of Seomun-si, and that Defendant 2 received one million won by borrowing the form of support fund from Defendant 2 to the twenty-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six-six of the same month from the above company's employees in receipt of the small amount of support fund in the form of support fund such as KRW 1 million and one million from the above company's employees in order to receive the funds for the establishment of the second factory in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and the change of the use of the green area into the local industrial area or the industrial area.

2. Defendant 2 in collusion with, and with, Nonindicted 2, 6, 7, and 8:

Defendant 1 asks Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 to contribute support money in the name of Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 in the name of Defendant 1, including Defendant 1, who contributed support money to Defendant 1 and instructed Defendant 1 to contribute political funds in the form of small-amount support money, in order to solve the problems related to the establishment of a secondary factory in order to solve the problems, such as changes in the urban planning, as described in the above paragraph (1), with respect to the establishment of a secondary factory in Seosan City City Mayor as described in the above paragraph (1).

around December 7, 2005, at the office of Defendant 2, the head office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the head office located in Youngdo-dong 63, Defendant 2 first supported Defendant 1 with KRW 1 million, Nonindicted 2, 6, 7, and 8 with each of the 100,000 won, and 5,60,000,000 won for political funds in the company's second factory establishment business by allowing 5,42 employees listed in the attached list of crimes that were ordered in the order through Nonindicted 6 and 7 to remit support payments to each of the 1,00,000 won in the above company's second factory establishment business by allowing the above 5,00,000 won in total to Defendant 1, a member of the local constituency in Seosan-do-dong to make a solicitation or mediation with respect to the affairs described in paragraph (1) above.

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The witness’s respective legal statements in each part of Nonindicted 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

1. The witness's legal statement (as to the facts constituting the crime stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment with respect to Defendant 1)

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 16 (2 and 3) and Nonindicted 17 (4)

1. Copy of the interrogation protocol of Nonindicted 4 by the prosecution

1. Each prosecutor's protocol on interrogation of the Defendants, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 17 (1 and 3), and Nonindicted 16 (4) containing some statements

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol of statement on Nonindicted 18, 19, 20, 9 (2), 21 (5), 22 (4), 23, 24, 25, 26, 11 (3), 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (3), 36 (2), 2 (5), 4, 13, and 37, respectively.

1. A copy of each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 4 and 5

1. Nonindicted 38 (1) and 4), Nonindicted 16, 39, Nonindicted 21 (1) and Nonindicted 11 (2), Nonindicted 35 (1), Nonindicted 9 (1), Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 1 (1 through 6), Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 2 (1 through 4), Nonindicted 41, 42, Nonindicted 22 (1 through 3), 8, 10, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 61, 52, 53, 52, 53, 54, and 67, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 64, 67, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 65, and Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 67, and Nonindicted 65 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, respectively.

1. Each written statement prepared by Nonindicted 3, 42, 53, 63, 64, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80

1. Some of the statements in the preparation of Nonindicted 6, 16, 17, 55, and 81

1. Each protocol of seizure (record 163, 168 pages, 173, 178 pages, 183, 183, 188, 193, 592, 2351, 2356 pages, 2361, 2366 pages, 2371 pages, 2376 pages);

1. Each investigation report (Investigation records 6, 15, 17, 272 pages, 341, 342, 344, 346, 348, 381, 594, 605, 650, 650, 739, 803, 804, 806, 808, 1162, 1612, 1662, 1801, 18444, 1950, 2076, 2035, 2704, 2704, 2774, 317, 31763, 3176, 364, 375, 364, 375, 364, 197

1. Defendant 1’s contribution of political funds of the National Assembly members (244 pages of investigation records), Defendant 1’s identity of donator of support payments (245 pages of investigation records), inquiry (269 pages of investigation records), duplicate of passbook 1 bank (269 pages of investigation records), printed out Nonindicted 21 director’s computer output (431 pages of investigation records), meeting with the chairperson of the Transport storage team (648 pages of investigation records), review report (1310 pages of investigation records), request for alteration of the Urban Management Plan (1315 pages of investigation records) in Seosan City (135 pages of investigation records), special-purpose area (1316 pages of investigation records), and modification of the Seosan Urban Management Planning (a plan) in accordance with the construction of a general local industrial complex (a plan for investigation records), securing a factory site and requesting cooperation pursuant to Article 137(1)37 of the Investigation Records (a plan for promotion of construction and investigation records)

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

- Defendant 1: Article 45(2)5 of the Political Funds Act and Article 32 subparag. 3 (Selection of Imprisonment)

- Defendant 2: Articles 45(2)5 and 32 subparag. 3 of the Political Funds Act, Articles 30, 34, and 31(1) (Appointment of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. The punishment to be suspended (Defendant 1);

8 months of imprisonment;

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence (Defendant 1);

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (Defendant 1);

Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act

1. Whether the facts charged against Defendant 2 are not specified in the facts charged of violating the Political Funds Act

(a) A captain;

In this part of the facts charged, in the case of the donation of KRW 54.2 million using 542 staff members who are an indirect offender, the basic facts that Defendant 2 should bear as an indirect offender are not specified and illegal.

(b) Markets:

The purport of allowing the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the object of a trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of its defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. As such, the facts charged is sufficient to state the facts constituting the elements of a crime in the indictment to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by comprehensively taking account of these elements. Therefore, even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not clearly stated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, and it cannot be said that the indictment is unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified.

In the case of the part of the facts charged by the defense counsel's assertion, the date, time, place, amount, and its affiliation of the employee who is working on the day of donation may be clearly identified, and the facts constituting the elements of the crime may be sufficiently distinguished from other facts. Even if the process of delivering instructions after the direction of the defendant 2 did not indicate daily facts in the facts charged, it cannot be said that the defendant 2's exercise of defense right is not impeded in light of the fact that sufficient deliberation was conducted in this court

2. Whether there was a solicitation or arrangement between the Defendants regarding the duties to be performed by the Seosan market

A. The defense counsel of the Defendants claimed that the non-indicted 2, who is the defendant 2 or the non-indicted 2's employee, requested the defendant 1 to assist in resolving public opinion in opposition to the moving-in of the second factory in the Busan metropolitan area (such as the defendants or their defense counsel expressed that they are civil petitions; hereinafter referred to as "civil petition problem") in relation to the plan to newly build the second factory in the Busan metropolitan area (hereinafter referred to as the "second factory"), and that the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1, who is the public official of the defendant, requested a solicitation or mediation or did not receive any request with respect to the affairs in charge and handling by the non-indicted 1, who is the public official of the defendant.

(b) Markets:

(1) 앞서든 각 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 2는 제2공장 신축부지를 구하기 위하여 고심하고 있던 중인 2005. 8. 초순경 사우디아라비아에서 우연히 피고인 1을 만났는바, 그 자리에서 피고인 1이 피고인 2에게 자신이 제2공장을 그 지역구인 서산 대산지역에 유치하겠다고 말한 사실(에쓰오일는 이미 대산지역을 제2공장 신축을 위한 유력한 후보지로 보고 그 직원들인 공소외 2 등이 2005. 7.경 대산지역과 서산시청을 방문한 적이 있었다), 그 후 피고인 2는 제2공장 신축의 대안으로 계획하고 있었던 인천정유 입찰이 실패하자 피고인 1에게 전화하여 제2공장 신축과 관련하여 공소외 1 서산시장을 만나게 해 달라고 부탁하였고, 이를 승낙한 피고인 1은 공소외 1 서산시장에게 전화하여 에쓰오일가 제2공장을 대산지역에 신축할 의향이 있으니 만나보라고 권유하였으며, 이를 계기로 2005. 8. 22. 서산시청 시장실에서 공소외 1과 피고인 2, 1 및 에쓰오일 관계자, 서산시청 담당직원들이 참석한 간담회가 개최되었고, 그 간담회에서 서산시청측에서는 에쓰오일가 제시한 지역 중 일부를 그 인근 지역으로 대체하여 자연녹지 약 33만 평(도시관리계획 기본계획상으로 공업지역이었기 때문에 용도변경이 가능하다)이 포함된 약 70만 평을 제2공장 신축부지로 제시하였고, 당시 위 자연녹지지역의 도시계획변경 문제가 언급되었는데 이에 대하여 공소외 1 서산시장이 긍정적인 태도를 보인 사실, 피고인 2는 2005. 8. 25. 제2공장 신설을 위한 태스크포스팀 회의에서 피고인 1과 도시계획변경 문제를 결부하여 말한 사실이 있고(당시 회의에 참석한 공소외 14가 작성한 메모에, ‘문의원, 도시개발계획에 반영시켜야 하겠음’이라고 기재되어 있다), 2005. 9. 23. 신라호텔에서 개최된 사우디아라비아 국경일 만찬 석상에서 피고인 1을 만나 ‘도시계획을 변경하여야 한다더라’는 취지로 말하였는데, 이에 피고인 1은 ‘그럼 해결해야지요’라는 취지로 대답한 사실( 공소외 14가 작성한 메모를 보면, 피고인 2는 2005. 9. 26. 열린 위 태스크포스팀 회의에서 위와 같이 피고인 1을 만난 사실을 직원들에게 알렸음을 알 수 있다), 그 후 피고인 1은 2005. 10. 5. 피고인 2에게 전화하여, ‘사업을 계속하여 추진하라’는 취지의 말을 하였고, 피고인 2는 이를 피고인 1이 공소외 1 서산시장에게 도시계획변경과 관련한 말을 해둔 것으로 받아들인 사실(당시 통화시간은 106초였다), 한편 에쓰오일는 원래 개별공장 형식으로 제2공장을 신축할 계획이었는데, 서산시청 관계자의 조언에 따라 제2공장 신축부지 예정지 약 70만 평을 일반지방산업단지로 지정받기로 계획을 변경하였고, 피고인 2는 위 일반지방산업단지지정 신청이 임박한 2005. 10. 말경 공소외 2에게 피고인 1을 만나보라고 지시하였고, 이에 공소외 2는 2005. 11. 3. 제2공장과 관련한 사업계획서 등을 가지고 피고인 1의 사무실에서 피고인 1을 만나 제2공장 사업계획을 설명하고, 곧 일반지방산업단지지정 신청을 할 것인데 신청을 하면 잘 좀 되게 협조 부탁드린다고 말한 사실, 그 후 피고인 2는 일반지방산업단지지정 신청서가 서산시청에 제출된 2005. 11. 7. 피고인 1에게 전화하여 위 제출사실을 알리고 신경 써 달라는 취지로 부탁한 사실(통화시간 529초), 그런데 서산시는 2005. 11. 11. 위 지정신청에 대하여 관계 법령상 자연녹지지역에 대하여는 일반지방산업단지지정 신청 자체가 허용되지 않는다는 이유로 위 지정신청서의 접수를 거부한 사실, 이에 에쓰오일는 일반지방산업단지지정 신청을 위하여는 위 자연녹지지역의 용도변경이 선결과제임을 인식하고, 그 직원들이 서산시장이나 서산시청 담당직원들을 방문하여 조속한 용도변경을 요청하였으나, 서산시장이나 서산시청 담당자들은 그 무렵부터 대산지역 번영회 및 시민단체를 중심으로 하여 조직적으로 일기 시작한(위 번영회 회원들이 2005. 11. 23. 제2공장과 관련하여 서산시장을 방문하기도 하였다) 제2공장의 대산지역 입주를 반대하는 여론을 의식하여 그 민원문제부터 해결할 것을 요구한 사실, 이에 에쓰오일는 그 무렵부터 대산지역 이장 등 여론에 영향력 있는 인사들을 접촉하고, 지역주민의 동향을 파악하였으며, 서산지역 출신의 직원 공소외 3을 서산시에 상주시키기도 하였으며, 대산지역 영세민들에게 난방유를 공급하는 등 민원문제 해결을 위한 활동을 시작한 사실, 한편 공소외 1 서산시장은 2005. 12. 2. 전화로 피고인 2에게 용도변경을 서둘지 말아달라는 취지의 요구를 한 사실, 그런데 에쓰오일는 2005. 12. 22. 서산시청에 위 자연녹지지역의 용도변경을 요청하는 공문을 보냈고, 2006. 1. 6. 공소외 2가 서산시장을 방문하여 용도변경절차를 신속히 진행해 달라고 요청하였는데, 공소외 1이 서두르지 말라고 한 사실, 서산시는 2006. 1. 16. 용도변경은 주민제안사항이 아니라고 통보하여 사실상 에쓰오일의 조속한 용도변경 요구를 거부한 사실, 한편 피고인 2는 2006. 1. 24. 피고인 1을 만나 후원금으로 100만 원을 건넨 사실(이 부분은 공소사실에 포함되어 있지 않다), 그 후 에쓰오일는 제2공장 신축 예정부지 중 공업지역인 약 37만 평에 대하여만 먼저 일반지방산업단지지정 신청을 하기로 방침을 변경하여, 2006. 2. 8. 그러한 취지의 일반지방산업단지지정 신청서를 서산시청에 제출한 사실, 한편 에쓰오일로서는 제2공장 신설을 추진함에 있어 그 무렵 국제원자재 값이 상승하고 있었고, 제2공장의 신설을 위한 중요기자재 중 일부는 발주로부터 그 제작기간이 30개월 이상 걸리는 점에서 시급히 행정절차를 밟아야만(적어도 일반지방산업단지지정 절차가 개시되어야 했던 것으로 보인다), 이사회의 의결을 거쳐 부지 매수 작업 및 위 중요 기자재의 발주 등의 후속절차를 진행시킬 필요가 있었던 사실, 도시계획변경(용도변경)을 위하여는 시장이 입안하여 주민공람 등을 거쳐 도지사에게 송부하여야 하고, 일반지방산업단지지정을 위하여는 시가 신청서를 검토하여 요건에 부합하면 그대로 도에 전달하고, 차후 주민의견수렴절차 등을 거쳐 도에 의견을 제시할 수 있도록 되어 있는 사실 등을 알 수 있는바, 이와 같이 에쓰오일측이 2005. 11. 중순경 이전까지 민원문제 해결을 위하여 어떠한 외부적 행동을 한 적이 없고, 실제 그 무렵까지는 주시하여야 할 정도의 조직적인 제2공장의 대산입주 반대 여론이 형성되지도 아니한 점, 에쓰오일측으로서는 도시계획변경절차나 일반지방산업단지지정 절차가 조속히 개시되어야 할 필요가 있었으므로, 비록 서산시장이 이에 대하여 긍정적인 입장을 취하였다고 하나 서두르고 있지는 아니하였으므로, 피고인 1을 통하여 그와 정치적 동지의 관계에 있는 서산시장 공소외 1에 대하여 영향력을 행사해 줄 것을 기대하면서 이를 부탁할 필요성이 있었다고 보이는 점, 국회의원으로서는 지역구 주민들과 기업사이에 이해관계가 상충하는 경우 내심은 어떠할 지라도 대외적으로는 지역구 주민들의 입장을 대변하여야 할 것이므로, 그러한 상황에서 기업측에서 국회의원에게 민원해결을 부탁하고 국회의원이 이를 긍정적으로 받아들였다는 것은 경험칙상 받아들이기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 피고인 2가 피고인 1에게 민원문제 해결을 위한 부탁을 하였다는 피고인들의 변소에 부합하는 증거들은 믿기 어렵고, 오히려 이 부분 공소사실에 부합하는 피고인 2와 공소외 2의 각 진술 부분이 신빙성이 있으므로, 결국 피고인 2나 공소외 2가 피고인 1과 도시계획변경 및 일반지방산업단지지정 신청과 관련하여 대화를 나누고 나아가 협조를 부탁한 것은 피고인들의 변소와 같이 민원문제 해결에 대한 협조요청이 아니라 도시계획변경 및 일반지방산업단지지정과 관련하여 서산시장에게 협조를 구해달라는 청탁 또는 알선 요청을 한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

3. Whether Defendant 1 can be seen as having received political funds from Defendant 2, etc.

A. Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that since political funds provided by Defendant 2 and others are reverted to Defendant 1’s supporters’ association, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have been contributed.

(b) Markets:

(1) In light of the legislative purport of the Political Fund Act that stipulates that a public official may not make or receive a political fund in connection with the affairs that he/she is in charge of, or arrange for, the affairs that he/she is in charge of, a political party, even though he/she is unable to receive political fund without going through a supporters' association under the current Political Fund Act, and that a supporters' association exists only formally to the extent that he/she is able to be deemed to substantially manage the supporters' association in light of the structure, operational status, etc. of the said supporters' association, even if the supporters' association contributed to the supporters' association with the support fund and following the process that the supporters' association contributed to the supporters

(2) As to the instant case, Defendant 1’s supporters’ association uses Defendant 1’s office work room. The above supporters’ association is no employee belonging to Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 4, a person in charge of accounting, is the assistant officer of Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 5, an individual employee of Defendant 1, registered as the employee of Defendant 1’s attorney’s office and assist Defendant 1’s attorney-at-law at the same time as Defendant 1’s employee who is in charge of the political fund accounting of the supporters’ association. Nonindicted 5, a supporters’ association and Defendant 1’s attorney-at-law are kept together, and Nonindicted 4’s entry and withdrawal of each passbook are subject to Nonindicted 4’s instruction as to the admission and withdrawal of each passbook. In light of the above facts, Defendant 1’s supporters’ association did not have any form, rather than having any substance separate from Defendant 1, nor did Defendant 25’s prior opinion be deemed to have received political fund contributions from Defendant 1.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant 1's defense counsel's assertion.

4. Whether any political fund has been contributed and received in connection with any request or arrangement for the business affairs in charge of and managed by the Seosan City;

A. Each defense counsel of the Defendants denies the Defendants’ criminal intent.

(b) Markets:

(1) A criminal intent is required to be recognized as constituting a crime. However, in a case where the defendant denies his criminal intent in a case where the receipt of money and other valuables is recognized, if the defendant denies his criminal intent, the subjective element is to prove it by means of an indirect fact or circumstantial fact having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes an indirect fact with considerable relevance should be determined by means of a reasonable method of determining the connection of the fact based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2064, Mar. 12, 2002).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, even if the Defendants were to have been admitted as evidence as seen above, since they did not have any connection with the establishment of a secondary factory between the Defendants in Saudi Arabia on August 2005, since there was no specific connection with the first time in Saudi Arabia, most of the Defendants were to communicate with each other whenever significant changes occur in the establishment of a secondary factory. As seen thereafter, Defendant 2, who individually contributed political funds, did not appear to have contributed 5.6 million won to the members of the National Assembly. Defendant 1 did not appear to have been able to have been able to report the fact from Nonindicted 4 after the commencement of the donation to the members of the National Assembly, or to have been able to receive from the members of the National Assembly regarding the donation of political funds, on the grounds that there were no specific recommendations from the members of the National Assembly regarding the donation of political funds to the members of the National Assembly, and on the grounds that there were no other reasons to deem the Defendants to have received from the members of the National Assembly, as seen earlier, the Defendants 1 and 2000 days after the donation.

(3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendants’ assertion on this part.

5. Whether Defendant 2 may ask Defendant 2 for the charge of the portion of KRW 54.6 million, which was not directly donated by Defendant 2

A. Defense Counsel's assertion

First, as a result of the facts charged, 542 staff members who were used as non-indicted 6, 7, 8, 2, or tool in relation to the defendant 2 as co-offenders, are contributed to each defendant 1's supporters' association as their own money. Thus, they cannot be deemed to have contributed KRW 54.6 million to the defendant 2, and second, as the contribution of the political fund in the judgment of the court below was not known that the contribution of the non-indicted 2, 6, 7, and 8 (hereinafter "non-indicted 7 et al.") was made in relation to the request for a solicitation or mediation concerning the affairs in charge and management by the non-indicted 1, the defendant 2 cannot be deemed to have conspired with the non-indicted 7, etc., and third, as a result of the facts charged, 542 staff members who were non-indicted 5.42 who were used as a tool in accordance with the facts charged, were voluntarily contributed to the defendant 1's supporters' association.

(b) Markets:

(1) First, with respect to a contribution act by a person who was conspired with Defendant 2 or who is recognized as being used as an instrument by Defendant 2, Defendant 2 can be held liable as an accomplice or an indirect offender. Thus, Defendant 2 can only be held liable for a violation of the Political Funds Act, with respect to a contribution act by Defendant 2.

(2) Next, the joint execution of the crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices realize the elements of the crime by themselves, and it is possible to cooperate with them to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether the act constitutes it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. It is recognized based on the above evidence. Nonindicted 7, as the president of the part of the production and management of marday at the time of the crime of this case, is a person subject to the report on the construction of marday 2 factory. Nonindicted 6, as the president of the part of marday, Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 6, who are the president of marday. Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 8 decided whether to contribute political funds as indicated in the judgment, and Nonindicted 2 appears to have actively participated in the contribution of political funds to the marday employee, and in view of the circumstances that it appears to be the one who is well aware of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's intent or defense counsel's relation.

As alleged by the counsel, even though it was unaware of the fact that the act of contribution of political funds in the judgment by the fourth person, such as Nonindicted 7, etc., was conducted in connection with the solicitation or mediation of the affairs in charge and the affairs performed by Nonindicted 1 in the Seosan market, Defendant 2 should be liable for an indirect crime for the following reasons with respect to the act of contribution by the fourth person, such as Nonindicted 7, etc., as seen below. Thus, Defendant 2’s criminal liability does not affect.

(3) In addition, Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the above employees who were not subject to punishment due to any act or who instigated or aided the above employees to commit a crime shall be punished pursuant to the example of aiding and abetting the employees as indirect offenders. According to each of the above evidence, if the above employees were to be provided with guidance for small amount of money around November 2005, or if they were to be provided with so-called "small amount of money" within the scope of KRW 100,000,000, then they may be provided with information for resident tax, and if they were to be provided with assistance to the above employees of the 1st election district, the employees of the 2nd election district, including the above employees of the 1st election district, the employees of the 1st election district, who were to be provided with assistance from the above employees of the 1st election district, and the employees of the 2nd election district, who were to be provided with assistance from the 1st election district, will be provided with small amount of money to the 1st election.

Therefore, this part of the argument is rejected.

6. Whether Defendant 1’s arrangement of the Inter-Korean summit on August 22, 2005 constitutes a justifiable act

Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant 1 arranged a meeting on August 22, 2005 between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 1, which is the Seosan market, constitutes a justifiable act. As such, mediation under Article 32 subparag. 3 of the Political Funds Act refers to a mediation or convenience between a public official who may be the other party to the mediation act and a third party regarding a certain matter, and it also includes a case where the mediation is subject to a legitimate act. As such, Defendant 1’s act of arranging the above inter-party conference constitutes not only the mediation act prescribed in the above Article but also the prohibition under Article 32 subparag. 3 of the Political Funds Act is not a public official’s act of offering or mediating political funds in relation to the affairs in charge of the public official’s solicitation or mediation, or not a punishment for the mediation itself. Thus, Defendant 1’s above mediation act does not constitute a violation of the Political Funds Act solely on the ground that it is a justifiable act in itself being justified.

1. As to Defendant 1

Defendant 2’s 5.6 million won, which was provided to Defendant 1 as political funds, is a small-amount support fund, and the amount of 10% plus 10% of the support fund to the sponsor as a national tax through the tax credit procedure. Thus, the crime is ultimately committed as a citizen’s tax, and the quality of the crime is not less complicated.

However, if Defendant 1’s act takes place until receiving a contribution of the political funds as indicated in the judgment, it seems that Defendant 1’s act itself was a member of the National Assembly, and in the process, Defendant 1 exercised an unfair pressure against Nonindicted 1, or used the political influence against Nonindicted 1, in the process of the administrative procedure, there is no possibility of criticism against the above acts committed by Defendant 1 on the grounds that: (a) Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 2, who is the Seosan market, are arranged to attract the second factory that may go to China, if the appropriate site for factory is not found, in order to attract Defendant 1’s area in the Seosan mountain area; and (b) from the standpoint that the second factory is recommended to be the site for the second factory in the process of the administrative procedure thereafter, he made efforts to prevent a transfer of the second factory from being made to another area. In addition, in the process, there is no possibility of criticism against the above acts committed by Defendant 1.

In addition, it is difficult to see that Defendant 1 was aware of illegality in that it was not more than two years since the small-amount support payment system was implemented, and there was no precedent for punishment for the same kind of act. Defendant 1 did not have any material to deem that Defendant 2 first demanded political funds in connection with solicitation or arrangement as indicated in the judgment, or that there was a prior communication with the National Assembly member in relation to the formation and operation of the supporters' association, and it seems unreasonable to expect that it was completely independent of the National Assembly member in relation to the formation and operation of the supporters' association.

In full view of these circumstances, Defendant 1 is subject to imprisonment with prison labor, and Defendant 1 is subject to suspension of sentence, on the ground that it is judged that Defendant 1 would lose a member of the National Assembly due to the violation of the Political Funds Act as stated in the judgment, and that there is an excessively harsh reason for the loss of eligibility for election for a considerable period of time in the future. In full view of the fact that there is no previous conviction, collection of 5.6 million won for political funds as stated in the judgment, collection of 5.6 million won for political funds, as well as contribution to the development of the

2. The following facts are examined as to Defendant 2:

In the case of Defendant 2, Defendant 1 used Defendant 1, a member of the local constituency in a voice without following due process in order to achieve his own purpose. Furthermore, even though the small amount support fund system is ultimately preserving it with the national tax for the purpose of developing the political culture through a majority of the small amount of sponsors, Defendant 1 using the benefits of tax credit to contribute the small amount of support fund to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 did not have any evidence to deem that Defendant 1 first demanded this contribution to Defendant 2. In the case of this case, it is very good that the nature of the crime is not high in that Defendant 1 planned the crime of this case and moved to implement the crime of this case. In particular, Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment of three years at the first instance trial due to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, and the appellate court continued to commit the crime of this case without being informed of the need for punishment compared to Defendant 1.

However, in light of all the circumstances indicated in the record, Defendant 2 has contributed to the development of No. 2 as a professional manager, and since foreign capital itself could not prove the economic value of the second factory due to the reality of No. 2 as a major shareholder, it is difficult for Defendant 2 to smoothly secure the site of No. 2 factory of No. 2 factory of No. 1 in Seo-si and to promptly implement administrative procedures for the construction of a factory in order to maintain the competitiveness thereof, it is not reasonable to consider in that Defendant 2 committed the crime in order to promptly implement administrative procedures for the construction of a factory, and it is against the waste of national taxes due to the crime in the judgment, and at the preservation level, there is an expression of the intention of donation to the State. Thus, the sentence of Defendant 2 is too harsh, and thus, Defendant 2 shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a considerable period of time, but the execution of the sentence shall be suspended.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 cannot receive money and other valuables or benefits from mediating matters belonging to the public official’s duties. However, as stated in the judgment, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have acquired property from Defendant 2, since the donations deposited into the account in this case were contributed to Defendant 1’s political funds, and Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have acquired property from Defendant 2 (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do837, Jun. 9, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do357, Jun. 9, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do37, Jun. 9, 2009).

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 received an application for designation of a general local industrial complex with respect to the amount of 700,000 square meters including the natural green area of 330,000 square meters around November 205, but the above application was rejected from the Seosan City on the ground that the natural green belt was included in the pre-determined site of the instant factory from the time of the rejection of the above application, from January 2006, until January 2006, Defendant 1 made every effort to ensure that the above change in the use was resolved, so that it can be designated as soon as possible, and that Defendant 2 received political funds from Defendant 2 with respect to the mediation of various kinds of authorization and permission issues, and that Defendant 2 contributed political funds in relation thereto, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the facts charged shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or that each violation of the Political Funds Act with respect to the crime of this day is pronounced not guilty.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)