[1] Legislative intent and scope of Article 30(1) of the former Political Funds Act

[2] The case holding that where a member of the National Assembly directly receives political funds without going through a supporters' association, it may immediately lead to the completion of a violation of Article 30 (1) of the former Political Funds Act, and thus, even if he issued receipts or returned receipts to the provider, it shall not affect the already established crime

[1] The main purpose of Article 30(1) of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7191 of Mar. 12, 2004) is to punish a person who has received political funds in an individual and voice without following normal methods, such as party membership fees, support payments by political parties or members of the National Assembly, etc., deposit of political funds to political parties, grant of subsidies to political parties to political parties, etc. Therefore, in cases where a member of the National Assembly directly receives political funds from an individual or corporation without going through a supporters' association, the act of receiving political funds does not go through a supporters' association, regardless of whether he/she has received a receipt in the name of the supporters' association, and thereby, he/she cannot be exempted from the responsibility under Article 30(1) of the same

[2] The case holding that where a member of the National Assembly directly receives political funds without going through a supporters' association, it may immediately lead to the violation of Article 30 (1) of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7191 of March 12, 2004), and thus, even if he issued receipts after the receipt or returned them to the provider, it shall not affect the crime already established.

[1] Articles 2(1), 3 subparag. 8, 5, 6, and 30(1) of the former Political Funds Act (amended by Act No. 7191 of March 12, 2004) / [2] Article 30(1) of the former Political Funds Act (amended by Act No. 7191 of March 12, 2004)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do435 Decided July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2020) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8294 Decided August 20, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1619) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5652 Decided December 10, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 157)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Go Middle-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2004No1609 delivered on November 5, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 2(1) of the former Political Fund Act (amended by Act No. 7191, Mar. 12, 2004; hereinafter “Act”) provides that “any person shall not contribute or receive any political fund unless otherwise prescribed by this Act.” Articles 3 subparag. 8, 5, and 6 provide that any member of the National Assembly shall not be entitled to directly contribute any political fund from any individual or corporation, and any individual or corporation may receive any political fund only by means of receiving a re-contribution from the relevant supporters’ association. Article 30(1) provides that any person shall be punished “a person who gives or receives any political fund in a way that is not prescribed by this Act.” Article 30(1) of the said Act provides that “The main legislative purport of the said Act is that any person who is declared as a member of the National Assembly, such as a party or a member of the National Assembly, shall be prohibited from receiving any political fund under the name of the relevant supporters’ association without being sentenced to 201, 200, 2001.

2. Based on the statement stated in the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1’s reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, a member of the National Assembly, was able to arbitrarily dispose of at any time by depositing the political funds of KRW 30 million in the account for support payments and issuing a receipt in the name of the supporters’ association; (b) on January 5, 2003, the Defendant did not take any measures such as depositing the receipt in the name of the supporters’ association as to KRW 50 million, and (c) continued to keep the Defendant’s office in the member’s center at any time until he issued the receipt in the name of the supporters’ association; and (d) even if the Defendant directly delivered the political funds without going through the supporters’ association, it constitutes an act of receiving the political funds of KRW 30 million from Nonindicted Party 2,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which constitutes a violation of Article 30(1) of the Act; and (c) 2500,00,0,00,00.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above selection of evidence, fact-finding, and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the timing of violation of Article 30 (1) of the Act and the criminal intent of receiving political funds, as

3. The facts charged of this case are as follows. The defendant received KRW 2.5 million from Nonindicted 2 by issuing only a receipt in the name of the supporters' association consisting of KRW 50,000,000,000 in cash, and around that time, the defendant received KRW 2.5 million in political funds by means of not stipulated in the Act. The prosecutor appears to institute a public prosecution to the effect that the defendant's act of receiving KRW 2.5 million directly from Nonindicted 2 without going through the supporters' association and directly receiving KRW 2.5 million from Nonindicted 2 constitutes a case where he received political funds by means of not stipulated in the Act immediately. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case in the same purport. Thus, the court below did not err in finding the defendant guilty

In addition, the part related to the time of issuance of receipts or the excess of the limit of donation in the judgment of the court below is merely an additional and family judgment to the purport that even if the defendant is deemed to have received political funds from Nonindicted 2 on behalf of the supporters' association, he cannot be exempted from liability pursuant to the "Act". Thus, insofar as the judgment of the court below as seen earlier is justifiable, the legitimacy of additional and family judgment cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal as to

Ultimately, we cannot accept all the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)