[1] Whether the provisions of Article 10(3) of the Political Funds Act newly enacted by Act No. 10395, Jul. 23, 2010; and whether the designation authority of a member of the National Assembly, etc., who directly received political funds from supporters and delivers them to a person in charge of accounting of a supporters’ association within a short-term period constitutes a case where the relevant provisions of the former Political Funds Act, which are subject to punishment, are amended or amended from an anti-

[2] In a case where a member of the National Assembly Gap was indicted against the violation of the former Political Fund Act by receiving political funds directly from a supporter Eul, the case holding that if Gap delivered political funds received from a supporter Eul to a person in charge of accounting of a supporters' association within 30 days along with his personal information, it constitutes "when the act does not constitute a crime due to a change in the law after the crime," under Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act

[1] Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(1), 5 (see current Article 6 of the Political Funds Act), 6 (see current Article 10 of the Political Funds Act), and 30(1) (see current Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act), Article 10(3) of the Political Funds Act / [2] Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(1), 5 (see current Article 6 of the Political Funds Act), 6 (see current Article 10 of the Political Funds Act), 30(1) (see current Article 45(1)) of the Political Funds Act, Article 10(3) of the Political Funds Act / [3) of the Political Funds Act / [2] Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(1), 6(1) of the former Political Funds Act (Amended by Act No. 7191, Mar. 12, 2004); Article 30(3) of the Political Funds Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Spanman International et al. al.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2612 Decided March 12, 2009

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No677 decided February 5, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio before determining them.

1. Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act requires the application of new law in cases where the evaluation of acts committed as a crime in the past has changed due to the change of the legal ideology which is the reason for the enactment of penal law, and the evaluation thereof has been recognized as a crime and the punishment itself has been unfair, or where the Acts and subordinate statutes have been amended or amended in light of anti-discrimination that excessive punishment has been excessive (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2770, Oct. 10, 2003, etc.).

2. A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by applying Article 30(1) of the former Political Funds Act (amended by Act No. 7191, Mar. 12, 2004; hereinafter “former Political Funds Act”) to the facts charged that the Defendant received political funds by receiving KRW 10 million from the Nonindicted Party of the △△ Group’s Vice-Chairperson for the use of political activities, such as the presidential election campaign, from the guest room of Yeonsu-gu Incheon on December 10, 200, where the 16th member of Hanra Party was a member of the 16th National Assembly of Korea, and received political funds by means of not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

B. However, Articles 2(1), 5, and 6 of the former Political Funds Act provide that a member of the National Assembly may receive political funds only through a supporters’ association. Furthermore, Article 30(1) provides that “Any person who gives or receives political funds by means not provided for in this Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.” Therefore, a member of the National Assembly, who does not go through a supporters’ association and receives political funds directly from a supporter, could not be exempt from the responsibility of violating Article 30(1).

However, Article 10(3) of the Political Funds Act (amended by Act No. 10395, Jul. 23, 2010) provides that "in cases where a supporter directly contributes support payments to the designation authority of the supporters, if the supporter delivers the donated support payments and the identity of the donor to the person in charge of accounting of the supporters' association he/she designates within 30 days from the date on which the designation authority of the relevant designation authority of supporters' associations, the relevant supporters' association shall be deemed to have been donated." However, there is no transitional provision separately, but there was no transitional provision that such amendment was made because the former measure that is subject to punishment was unfair, considering that the designation authority of the National Assembly members, etc. directly receives political funds from the supporter and delivers them to the person in charge of accounting of the supporters' association within the short

Therefore, in this case, if the defendant delivered the political funds received from the Nonindicted Party to the person in charge of accounting of the Defendant’s supporters’ association within 30 days, it constitutes “when the act does not constitute a crime due to the change of law after the crime” under Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act.

C. Thus, as to the facts charged of this case, after examining whether or not the defendant delivered the donations and the identity of the donator to the least sexual port that is a person in charge of accounting of the supporters' association within 30 days from the date when the defendant received KRW 10 million from the Nonindicted Party pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Political Funds Act, the judgment of the court below should no longer be maintained since the judgment below did not deliberate and decide on these matters.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)