Defendant 1 and two others

E-Councils

Attorneys Cho Yong-hoon et al.

The punishments imposed on Defendant 1 shall be KRW 1,500,000, and the penalties imposed on Defendant 3 shall be KRW 700,000, respectively.

If the above Defendants did not pay the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated as one day by adding one million won to each of them.

Defendant 2 is not guilty.

Defendant 1 was elected after having been selected as a candidate for Cheongnam-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do, which was implemented on May 31, 2006, and Defendant 3 was a person who was in charge of accounting of the budget-gun election campaign liaison office of Defendant 1 from the above election.

1. Defendant 1 cannot conduct a competition campaign by means other than those provided for in Chapter 6-2 of the Public Official Election Act in a competition campaign in which a political party grants voting rights to a party member or a person who is not a party member. A person who wishes to be a candidate in an election for the head of a metropolitan organization may not make a contribution to a person, institution, organization, or facility in the constituency concerned, and even if it is prohibited prior to the election campaign period, he shall not conduct an election campaign

A. At around 12:00 on December 26, 2005, Defendant 3 provided meals with Nonindicted 12 and 11, the operating members of the Korea-China Budget Eup/Myeon Office, Korea-U.S., and the participants of the meeting with the purport that “I will come to an election for the Do governor of Chungcheongnam-Nam-Nam-do. I will see. I will see. I will see. I.). I will conduct a competition campaign in a way that is not prescribed in the Public Official Election Act by complaining of support for himself at the fourth national simultaneous elections and at the fourth national simultaneous elections, I will conduct an election campaign in a way that is not determined in the Public Official Election Act, and at the same time conduct an election campaign prior to the election campaign period.

B. In granting around 18:00 on December 26, 2005, upon request from Nonindicted 14, who was the secretary general, performed as an assistant officer at the time of Defendant 1’s National Assembly member, Nonindicted 13 collected 10 or more members of the Hanra branch from Nonindicted 15, etc. at the request of Nonindicted 15, etc., and offered a copy of the election campaign to Defendant 1’s candidate in the name of “(trade name omitted)”, which was located in the Haanam-gun (Seoul), while presenting his academic background, career, etc. to the participants at the same place, Nonindicted 13, who was the secretary general, was 27.3% of the public opinion given to Defendant 1’s National Assembly member, and was working as an assistant officer at the time of his National Assembly member, and divided the number of members from Defendant 1’s election campaign and the number of members of the National Assembly members to the National Assembly member in the way of his election campaign for the National Assembly member’s candidate, and divided it from the National Assembly member’s candidate in the competition campaign.

C. Around 12:00 on December 29, 2005, Non-Indicted 5, who is a member of the Seocheon-gun Council of Hancheon-gun (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea-do Council”), had been working as an assistant officer at the time of Defendant 1’s National Assembly member, upon the request of Non-Indicted 6 to the effect that “if 20 members of the Korea-do Council request the convocation of members so that they may meet or take personnel, it shall be difficult for the Do governor to observe the terms and conditions of the election campaign, and if the Do governor is present at the same place and his career to the participants, it is difficult to consider that it would be difficult for Defendant 1 to observe the first place of the election campaign, and that it would be difficult for the Do governor to view that it would be difficult for Defendant 1 to observe the terms and conditions of the election campaign, and that it would be difficult for Defendant 1 to observe the first place of the election campaign.”

D. At around 15:00 on January 27, 2006, Nonindicted 9, the representative of the so-called “New Daily Union” (hereinafter “doctoral mother”) was asked by Nonindicted 14 to “in order to introduce members of the Korean Union and doctoral degreeal members to promote Defendant 1’s support ability,” and at the request of Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 9, the representative of the ASEAN area, who was a member of the Korean National Association of New Daily, filed with him to the effect that Nonindicted 16, 17, and Nonindicted 18, the electorate, the electorate of which are the doctoral mother, are located in the Gyeyang-dong where he was living in the Sinsan-dong where the Sinsan-dong, the electorate and the Sinan-si, the electorate of Non-Indicted 16, 17, and Non-Indicted 18, etc., who were the electorate of the Sinsan-do, were gathered at that place, and the participants were recruited to the Do governor candidate, and then, at the time of the election campaign nationwide.

2. Although Defendant 3 was unable to make a contribution on behalf of a person wishing to be a candidate in connection with the election, Defendant 3 made a contribution act for the person wishing to be a candidate by providing meals of 47,00 won to Nonindicted 19, who is the head of the above restaurant, by providing meals of 47,00 won for the above 47,00 won of meal expenses, at the time and at the place specified in paragraph (a) of Article 1, as well as with the members of the Korea-do Budget Eup/Myeon/Dong branch of Korea who are members of the local government of Korea who are members of the local government of Korea.

[Article 1-1(a) and (2)]

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 in this Court

1. Statement made by Nonindicted 11 prepared by the senior judicial police officer;

1. Each statement in the written answer to Nonindicted 11 and 12

1. Each investigation report (attached to the report by Defendant 1 on newspapers and news reports by the head of the Chungcheong branch office, or attaching to the report by the head of the Chungcheongnam-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Governor

[Article 1-2(b) of the Fair Trade Commission]

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 1 and witness Nonindicted 13, 20, 21, and 22 in this Court

1. Some statements made by prosecutors and judicial police officers in each protocol of suspect examination of Nonindicted 13 prepared by them;

1. Each written statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 13, 21, 22, 23, and 24

1. Each statement made by the senior judicial police officer on Nonindicted 13 and 15;

1. A copy of the DNA news article and each investigation report (a report attached to the news report by Defendant 1 in the branch office of the Chungcheong branch office of the Republic of Korea, or an attachment of news report by the Do Governor related to the news report by Defendant 1 to the Do Governor);

[Article 1-3(c) of the Fair Trade Commission]

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, 7, 25, and 26 in this Court

1. Each written statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2

1. Statement made by the senior judicial police officer on Nonindicted 7’s statement;

1. Each investigation report (attached to the report by Defendant 1 on newspapers and news reports by the head of the Chungcheong branch office, or attaching to the report by the head of the Chungcheongnam-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Governor

1. Recording notes and copies of the books prepared by Nonindicted 10

1. Results of inspection of the recording tapes of this court;

【No. 1-D.】

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 9, 18, and 17 in this Court

1. Each written statement made on Nonindicted 9, 18, and 16 prepared by the senior judicial police officer;

1. Some of the written answer to Nonindicted 18

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Articles 255(2)3 and 57-3(1) (a) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 254(3) (a) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 257(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 257(1)1 and 113(1) (a) of the Public Official Election Act.

Defendant 3: Article 257(1)1 and Article 115 of the Public Official Election Act.

2. Formal concurrence (Defendant 1);

Articles 40 and 50(1)(1) of the Criminal Act, each crime listed in Article 1(1)(a)(b) of the judgment; each crime listed in Article 1(2) of the Public Official Election Act shall be punished for a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a violation of a more severe competition campaign method; 2) each crime listed in Article 1(c) of the judgment; and 2) punishment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to an act of making the most significant contribution.

3. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1: Selection of each fine

Defendant 3: Selection of fine

4. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Crimes of Violating the Public Official Election Act due to Act of Contribution with the Maximum Punishment)

5. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Occupation of each advance election campaign and violation of each competition campaign method;

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) While Defendant 1 returned to various fields, such as budget, grant, book, and sunyang, Defendant 1’s division of conversation between party members or voters is merely “the preparation for a candidate and an election campaign.”

(2) At the same time, Defendant 1’s actual remarks are also ordinary, ordinary, and ordinary and social acts.

(3) Therefore, Defendant 1’s such act cannot be deemed as an internal competition campaign or advance election campaign.

(4) Even if there is no domestic affairs, it is only a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the pre-election campaign for acts conducted prior to the registration of a preliminary candidate, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a violation of the method of the intra-party competition campaign.

(b) Markets:

(1) An election campaign is an act for "specific candidate". Here, a candidate referred to in the term includes not only a person who is scheduled to participate in an election and applies for a specific election to a political party or who is officially expressed externally by his/her will, such as punishment for activities to obtain a candidate's recommendation from a general elector, but also a person who can objectively recognize that he/she has an intention to run for an election in light of his/her status, contact, speech, etc. In addition, the term "prior election campaign" means an active and planned act necessary for obtaining or obtaining a vote for the purpose of election of a specific candidate for the purpose of obtaining or getting a vote for the election of a specific candidate before the election campaign period in a specific election period, or an active and planned act that can objectively be recognized as being for the purpose of promoting an election or defeat of a specific candidate among all acts necessary and unfavorable to him/her for the purpose of defeat, and whether he/she constitutes an ordinary, ordinary, or social act is excluded here, and whether he/she constitutes an ordinary, or social act should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the social norms (see, etc.).

(2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence employed as to this case: ① Defendant 1 returned to the above budget, grant and Seocheon as above, and all members belonging to the restaurant were eligible to exercise influence at the election of each region; ② Defendant 1 was the first time in the media, etc. ② Defendant 1 was able to be viewed as a candidate for the Cheongnam Do governor, and it was difficult to view Defendant 1 as an act of preparing for an election campaign in the public official election law, rather than an act of preparing for an election campaign in the public official election law, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 appeared to have been an active act of preparing for an election campaign in the public election law, and that it was difficult to view Defendant 1 as an act of preparing for an election campaign in the public election law or in the public election law of Korea (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Do3270, Apr. 1, 2006). It appears that Defendant 1 was an active act of preparing for an election campaign in the public election law.

(3) Accordingly, each of the above arguments by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

2. Points for contributions;

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) Although Defendant 2 attempted to pay only the meal cost for himself and Defendant 1, Defendant 1 started as soon as possible while leaving a restaurant, Defendant 1 was demanded to pay all the meal cost, and Defendant 2 did not pay the meal cost for Defendant 1, on the wind that the employees of the restaurant would receive a return later, only paid all the meal cost at the request of the employees of the restaurant, but not on the part of Defendant 1.

(2) In addition, Defendant 2’s act cannot be considered as a contribution act, as Defendant 2’s general affairs (non-indicted 1) paid in advance the meal cost in advance before Defendant 2 paid the meal cost.

(3) Even if such act by Defendant 2 constitutes a contribution act, Defendant 1 does not have any conspiracy with Defendant 2 for such contribution act.

(b) Markets:

(1) The reasons are as follows. ① According to the statement made by Nonindicted 7 in this court, Nonindicted 8, the main owner of “(trade name omitted) restaurant,” Nonindicted 8, the main owner of Nonindicted 8, who was a witness, only stayed mainly in the inner room, which was used as a separate loan, although it was attached to the (trade name omitted) restaurant, can be recognized that it was rarely not in the restaurant, and Nonindicted 8, who was in the general secretary of the Korea Meeting, was found to have paid the above meal cost in advance to the female without any special reasons, and further, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 1, a witness paid the above meal cost in advance to Nonindicted 8, who was 1 million won after the date on which he was paid the said meal cost in advance, and that it was difficult to find out the fact that Nonindicted 8, the main owner of Nonindicted 8, who was an employee of the ordinary restaurant, had been paid the meal cost in advance to Nonindicted 7, who was an employee of the first day after the date of receiving the meal cost in advance.

(2) The following reasons are as follows. Article 112(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act provides the effect of the contribution to a person who wishes to be a candidate or candidate with an intention to take advantage of the effect of the contribution, and it is common case where the contributor of the property or profit becomes the contributor, but it does not always include the case where the contribution amount is delivered by the person who is considered to have been engaged in the contribution, on the ground that the contribution amount was actually replaced by the person who was actually engaged in the act of donation, in light of the fact that the person who was actually engaged in the act of donation and the fact that the person was not a witness at the time of his own election, and that there is no need to consider the motive or purpose of the contribution, the circumstances leading up to the act of the contribution, the circumstances leading up to the act of the contribution and the relationship between the defendant 1 and the person who was actually engaged in the act of donation and the person who was actually engaged in the act of donation.

(3) If so, we cannot accept all of the above arguments by Defendant 1 and the defense counsel on the premise that Defendant 1 was not a substantial subject of contribution, or that Defendant 2 was a substantial subject of contribution.

1. The part against Defendant 1

A. Summary of the contribution act of January 27, 2006

Defendant 1 received the 4th nationwide local election, and was elected as a candidate for Cheongnam-do Governor. Around 15:00 on January 27, 2006, Defendant 1 asked three persons, such as Nonindicted 9, etc. to seek support from her, at the Hanyang Tourist hotel coffee shop, which was located in the 15:00 on the 15:0 on the 27th regional election of the 4th regional election, and Defendant 9 expressed his intention to provide profits to the persons in the relevant constituency.

(b) Markets:

(1) Of the contribution acts under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act, “an expression of intent to provide money, goods, or other property benefits” is not restricted by methods such as verbal expression, but can only be evaluated as having expressed an intent to provide benefits to the extent that such expression of intent is difficult to withdraw it easily by social norms. Even if a conversation related to the provision of money, goods, or other benefits falls within the degree of external and objective appearance, if it is merely an expression of a personnel book to attract the other party, it shall not be deemed as having expressed an intent to provide benefits to the above extent (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4987, Apr. 27, 2006). In addition, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and even if there is no doubt that the recognition of conviction of the defendant is able to be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the facts charged by the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5865, Apr. 27, 2006).

(2) The evidence revealed in the records alone as to the instant case is not clear as to who actually paid the tea value. However, even if Non-Indicted 9 did not actually pay the tea value, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1’s true will is included in Defendant 1’s settlement of Non-Indicted 9 as at the time of the instant case, to the extent that it is difficult for him to easily withdraw it by social norms, and it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1’s settlement of Non-Indicted 9’s true will is beyond the mere level of personnel records, and that the degree of external and objective appearance is revealed. There is no other evidence with probative value that can lead to the conviction that the said part of the facts charged is true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, the point of expression of intent on January 27, 2006 of the facts charged in this case constitutes insufficient proof of crime and thus, Defendant 1 should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as seen earlier, as long as the court found Defendant 1 guilty of a violation of the Public Official Election Act by means of an election campaign conducted on January 27, 2006, which had a relation of commercial concurrent crimes with the above facts charged, the sentence of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

2. The part on the defendant 2

A. Summary of the facts charged against Defendant 2

At around 12:00 on December 29, 2005, Defendant 2: (a) went to the Do governor candidate for the Cheongnam-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do , who was elected, and (b) on December 29, 2005, Defendant 2 provided a contribution act for the person who wishes to become a candidate by calculating the meal cost of KRW 357,000 for the members of the Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do , which is located in the Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-do Do Gun Gun Do Do

(b) Markets:

As seen earlier, the actual subject of the above contribution act shall be deemed Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 shall be deemed to be a change of its name only (in conclusion, Defendant 2 shall be deemed to lack evidence to support that Defendant 2 is the actual subject of the contribution act or a principal offender). Defendant 2, who is not a candidate, cannot be deemed to be a joint principal offender of the contribution act by Defendant 1 and the candidate (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8250, Jan. 26, 2006, etc.).

C. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged against Defendant 2 fall under the case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, Defendant 2 is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Each of the instant crimes appears to be a planned and organized election crimes, and among them, there is a social consensus that a gold ticket election, in particular, a candidate-to-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-be-

2. Meanwhile, the part of Defendant 1’s violation of the intra-party competition method is also a substitute for the following reasons that it is difficult to light that Defendant 1 violated the intra-party competition method.

A. In theoretical sense, political parties are explaining that they actively form the political intentions of the people, represent the interests of all levels of the people, criticize the government, present policy alternatives, and perform important public functions that are indispensable for modern representative democracy, such as performing the role of the vehicle exercising influence on politics and state action (see Constitutional Court Order 96HunMa18, Mar. 28, 1996). Since today's actual election is a reality that has a big impact on the result of election when receiving and going out by a certain political party, it is not only the actual election but also the direction of the public as well as the timely and timely election at all stages, in order to not distort the opinions of the people who participated in the election of the candidates for public office.

B. In the instant case, Defendant 1 had influence on the election district by leading up to the intra-party competition, and returned to various areas of the election district. Defendant 1 committed an election crime against the party members or the operating committee members on several occasions, which goes beyond the scope of legitimate intra-party competition campaign, and Defendant 1 also committed an act of donation with the same contents as seen earlier (or, at the time of a meal meeting in grant, there is doubt that the meal cost is not actually settled by Defendant 1). In light of the fact that Defendant 1’s illegal election campaign did not affect the actual result of the competition campaign, it is questionable whether it is somewhat doubtful that Defendant 1’s illegal election campaign did not affect the actual result of the competition campaign.

3. The instant court, taking into account these various circumstances, receives most of its opinion on the sentencing of the Prosecutor’s Office that it is right to sentence Defendant 1 to invalidate the election.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)