Defendant

Emigration

Attorney Kang Chang-won

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge is not guilty.

A person who intends to collect donations of at least ten million won shall register with the Minister of Public Administration and Security or the Mayor/Do Governor.

On January 23, 2006, the Defendant did not register with the registration office at the office of environmental conservation citizens joint and several offices represented by himself, and collected donations of KRW 5,6920,000 in the year 2006 from Gwangju, Jeonnam and North Korea, as shown in the daily table in attached Table 1, from those related to environmental development of South-North Korea, such as receiving KRW 1,00,000 from those related to environmental development for support payments, and collected donations of KRW 5,692,00 in the year 2006, KRW 13,100,000 in the year 2008.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3

1. Each prosecutorial statement concerning Nonindicted 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9;

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 1, 10, 11, and 12

1. A copy of each letter of statement (Evidence No. 58, 59, 61 through 66, 68 through 70, 72 through 75, 77, 96, and 97 on the evidence list), a copy of each support payment receipt, a copy of a substitute slip, a copy of a passbook receipt, a copy of a passbook receipt, a copy of each transaction document, a copy of each transaction document, a copy of each entry and withdrawal book, a copy of

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 16(1)1 and 4(1) of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that money and valuables received from the public corporations in the judgment of the defendant are only money and valuables collected for the common interest of the so-called members as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1(a) of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations, and they are not subject to registration as stipulated in Article 4 (1) of the above Act. Thus, in light of the organization circumstance of the environmental joint and several citizens, the contents of their activities, and the relationship with the public corporations in the judgment, the details of the donations made by the public corporations in the judgment, and the details of the donations made by the public corporations in the judgment, etc., the defendant's criminal liability is recognized as stated in the judgment against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do870, Aug. 14, 190, etc.). The above assertion

1. This part of the facts charged

The Defendant is the representative of the “Environmental Preservation Joint and Several Citizens,” a non-profit non-profit private organization, which aims to protect the environment. Nonindicted 9, who is a secretary-general, was employed by Nonindicted 8 as a deputy secretary-general, and was in progress in Gwangju, Jeonnam, and North Korea as well as in the construction site, etc., and pressured the relevant business entities by filing a civil petition with the competent administrative agency or posting it on the website of the ordering agency, etc., and then taking unfair profits by opening money in the name of support payments.

On January 15, 2005, the Defendant sent the above non-indicted 9 and 8 to the non-indicted 13 Co., Ltd. 13 located in the Jeonnam-gun, and viewed the scene. They visited the above site to take photographs such as scattering dust, etc., and set a brut to other reporters, who are the chief of the management department, as well as photographs taken on the homepage of the citizens' solidarity on February 3, 2005, along with the photographs taken on the homepage of the environment preservation citizens' solidarity at the time of "day: : 15 January 15, 2005: Jeonnam-gun, YO: 13 construction site at the above 10 construction site, 200, 1000, 2000, 1000, 1000, 100,000, 100,000,000 won, and 20,000,000 won.

The Defendant, in collusion with the above non-indicted 9 and 8, received a total of KRW 27,400,000 from the persons related to the relevant company by November 2008, as shown in the annexed Table 2, from the persons related to the relevant company, in total of 11 times, as shown in the annexed Table 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the money received as stated in this part of the facts charged was based on their voluntary support and that the defendant did not receive such money as described in the above facts charged, and the prosecutor submitted the evidence as to the above facts charged, each of the statements in the investigation agencies of the non-indicted 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 and in this court, each of the statements in this court, the statements in the non-indicted 25, and 26, each statement in the investigation agencies of the non-indicted 27, and the investigation report (No. 80 of the evidence list).

B. Determination

Therefore, as to whether the defendant received money from the victim or the injured enterprise as stated in the above facts charged, the following circumstances are acknowledged: ① The victim or the injured enterprise’s employees stated in the above facts charged have either contributed to the purpose of activities of citizens on environment preservation, or voluntarily sponsored from the previous ones (non-indicted 17, 25, 19, 28, 23, and 24) with respect to the circumstance where their members were paid membership fees or support payments in this court; and the victim or the injured enterprise’s employees stated in the above facts charged, the victim or the injured enterprise did not appear to be able to support the victim for the purpose of supporting the environment protection or for the convenience of the victim’s 3rd enterprises by considering the characteristics of the corporation, and the victim or the victim’s employees stated in the above facts charged, and the victim or the victim’s employees stated in the above facts charged were not required to jointly and severally respond to the victim’s statements by the victim or the victim’s employees on the environment preservation, and the victim’s statements were not necessary to be jointly and severally agreed with the victim’s statements.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

[Attachment]

Judge Mumon decoration