Defendant 1 and one other

Lee Chang-won (prosecution), a abnormal trial

Law Firm Sejong & 2 others

Defendants are not guilty

1. Facts charged;

Defendant 1 was elected as the president of the ○○ Agricultural Cooperatives in Dobong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) on December 24, 2009 in the election of the president of the said agricultural cooperative, which was implemented on December 24, 2009; Defendant 2 was a person who served as the president of the said agricultural cooperative for 12 years from the beginning of 1998 to February 2, 2010.

No person shall provide money, goods, entertainment or other property benefits to members, etc. for the purpose of having himself/herself or a specific person elected or not elected as an executive or representative of a local agricultural cooperative, and shall not be provided with such benefits.

Defendant 1, in relation to the above election of the head of the cooperative, had the head of the cooperative support Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 pay a certain amount monthly amount to Defendant 2 after the election. Accordingly, on February 26, 2010, Defendant 1 transferred the total amount of KRW 13.5 million to Defendant 2’s national bank account in the name of Nonindicted 2, who was designated by Defendant 2 in the name of Nonindicted 3’s fraudulent bank account in the name of Nonindicted 1’s wife in the name of Nonindicted 2, who was designated by Defendant 2, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, to Defendant 2 during 17 times from that to February 23, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

As a result, Defendant 1 provided KRW 13.5 million to Defendant 2, who is a member of the above agricultural cooperative for the purpose of having himself elected in the election of the head of the above agricultural cooperative. Defendant 2 knowingly received the above KRW 13.5 million.

2. Determination

The facts charged of this case provide KRW 13.5 million to Defendant 2, a partner, for the purpose of having Defendant 1 elected himself in the election of the head of the ○○○ Agricultural Cooperative. Defendant 2 knowingly received the above KRW 13.5 million. The legal provision applied to Defendant 1 is Article 50(1)1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. (Article 50(1)1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act applies to the applicable provisions stated in the indictment (Article 50(1)1(a) or (c) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, but it is not specified that Defendant 2 was indicted under Article 50(1)3 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act in light of the facts charged.

First of all, there is room to interpret that the act prohibited under Article 50 (1) 1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act includes the act of offering money, goods, entertainment or other property benefits committed after the date of sentence; ① it is difficult to present that the act of offering money, goods, entertainment or other property benefits for the purpose of getting elected to the head of the association with the intention of having the voting completed and the election of the head of the association becomes final and conclusive; ② penal provisions should be strictly interpreted under the principle of no punishment without law; ② it is necessary to strictly interpret penal provisions under Article 50 (1) 1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. It is reasonable to interpret that the act prohibited under Article 50(1)1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act does not include the act of offering money, goods, entertainment or other property benefits

However, the election day of the president of the ○○○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, Defendant 1, was closed on December 24, 2009, but Defendant 1’s payment of money to Defendant 2 from February 26, 2010 to February 23, 2012, after the above election day of the head of the cooperative. Defendant 1’s above act is not prohibited by Article 50(1)1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, but is not prohibited by Article 50(1)1(a) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act. Accordingly, Defendant 2’s payment of money from Defendant 1 is not prohibited by Article 50(1)3 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act.

Thus, the facts charged in this case against the defendants constitute a crime and thus, they are acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-hee