A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant shall be the head of the F Association in the net Chang-gun, a person who is selected as a candidate for the head of the F Association in the first simultaneous election of the head of the F Association nationwide, and the head of the F Association shall not make a contribution while in office.

1. On February 6, 2015, the Defendant made a contribution to G by providing F members G, who were aware of in a usual manner through I, at the front parking lot of the Heatdo Ho-gun, Hadon-gun, G through I, with an amount equivalent to KRW 870,000, 30,000 in the market price, and made a contribution.

2. On February 17, 2015, the Defendant rendered a contribution act by providing 1 set of 29,000 won in the market price to J through K of door-to-door officers, at the house of F Union members who reside in the B-to-house in the B-to-house (hereinafter referred to as the “S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

3. On February 17, 2015, the Defendant made a contribution by providing L, who was aware of F members’ L at the end, residing in the Jeonbuk-gun M, with 145,000 won in the market price, to L, who had been living in the front of L of F members’ L at the end, and made a contribution by providing 5,000 won in the market price.

As a result, the Defendant provided three members of the F.I.D. with 36 years old rice tea (hereinafter “instant rice tea”) worth KRW 1,044,000 in total while in office as the head of the F.I.D., and contributed to the act of contribution.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Partial statement of the witness L;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning G, L, K, and I;

1. In a case where there are reasonable grounds in light of various circumstances, such as the relationship between the person who made the statement and the defendant, the type of crime, the need to protect the person who made the statement, etc., the fact that the investigative agency written the statement under the name of the person who made the statement does not necessarily mean that the protocol was not prepared in accordance with the “legal procedure and method” solely on the ground that the investigative agency prepared the protocol (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do757, May 24, 2012). On the other hand, the defendant and the defense counsel regarding each police protocol against J are set forth in the fourth statement.