beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) The KRW 29 million under Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below based on erroneous determination of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is the Defendant’s AD Policy Research Institute (hereinafter “instant Research Institute”).
() The office’s lease deposit (15 million won) and operating fund (14 million won) were received for personal research activities, not for the Defendant’s political activities. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby recognizing the said money as political funds. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (2) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 14074, Mar. 3, 2016; hereinafter the same) prohibits political funds from contributing or receiving political funds in a way that is not provided for in the former Political Fund Act, under Article 45(1) of the same Act, by defining political funds as “political funds” as “party membership fees, support payments, deposits, subsidies, incidental revenues prescribed by the party constitution and party rules, etc. of a political party, persons elected through an election for public office (including a Preparatory Committee for Central Party Formation), persons who intend to become candidates for an election for public office, persons who intend to become candidates for an election for public office, supporters’ associations, executives of a political party, persons in charge of clerical staff, or other persons who engage in political activities, and expenses incurred in their own political activities” (Article 3 subparag. 1 of the former Political Fund Act).
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9866 Decided June 26, 2014). (2) Gu.