Defendant 1 and five others

Maximum cases (prosecutions, public trials), Yang Dong-hun (prosecutions, public trials), and police officials in charge (prosecutions)

Law Firm Locom et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months;

5,000,000 won shall be collected from the above defendant.

To order the above defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the amount of the above additional collection.

2. Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months;

3. Defendant 3 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

4. Defendant 4 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years.

5. Defendant 5 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months.

6. Defendant 6 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

"2012 Gohap283, 394"

Basic Facts

피고인 6은 제16대, 18대 국회의원을 각 역임하고, 2012. 4. 11. 실시된 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 2012. 2. 1. 민주통합당 광주 동구 선거구의 예비후보로 등록하였다가 탈당한 후 무소속으로 출마하여 당선된 사람, 피고인 3은 2002년부터 현재까지 광주 동구청장으로 재직 중인 사람, 피고인 4는 광주 동구 제18대 국회의원인 피고인 6의 보좌관으로 2012. 4. 11. 실시된 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 피고인 6의 선거사무실에서 선거상황총괄팀장을 맡고 있는 사람, 피고인 2는 피고인 3, 6의 선거 당시 기획실장을 역임하였으며 피고인 6의 선거사무실에서 정책실장으로 근무하면서 사실상 피고인 6 선거캠프의 선거운동을 총괄하는 사람, 피고인 1은 주민자치위원으로 2008년경부터 현재까지 광주 동구청 자원봉사센터 사무국장으로 재직 중이며, 2002년, 2006년, 2010년 각 동구청장 선거에서 피고인 3의 청년팀장 및 수행비서를 하면서 피고인 3을 위하여 선거운동을 한 사람, 피고인 5는 피고인 6이 제16대 국회의원 재임시 ☆☆·◁◁ 당원협의회 사무실 사무국장, 제18대 국회의원 재임시 ‘특보’로 불리면서 피고인 6의 운전기사를 했던 사람으로, 피고인 6이 공동의장으로 있는 ‘◎◎◎위원회’ 사무실의 책임자이다.

The Democratic Integration Party introduced the “National Election System” (hereinafter “National Election System”) under which those who are not members of a political party beyond the border line determined by the existing members solely for the recommendation of candidates for election of National Assembly members of the National Assembly by means of the recommendation of candidates for election of National Assembly members of the same month, which allows those who are not members of a political party, to participate in the said competition, and there is a “mar voting” that may participate in the competition through mobile phones and an “on-site voting” that is directly voting at the real competition polling station in order to become an elector of the “mar voting” among them by means of a call center, Internet and mobile phone devices, and then make a voting using its cell phone devices from March 10 through January 11, 2012 to February 20 through 29, 2012, and the period of solicitation for the competition is from February 20 to February 29, 2012.

On January 20, 2012, Defendant 4, 2, and 1 mobilized the organization of Defendant 3 in the process of discussing Defendant 6's competition and election campaign at the seat of the Dong-dong in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and discussed the contents of Defendant 6 to provide money to Defendant 6 and to participate in the election at the center. After organizing the Gyeong-gu Committee for Countermeasures against Election in the Dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, and urged each of the 13 Dongs to register the Gyeong-dong as the Gyeong-dong group of mobile voting and encourage each of them to register the Gyeong-dong as the Gyeong-dong group of mobile voting and to distribute it again.

Meanwhile, around October 2010, the Dong Love Women's Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong Love Women's Association") is a women's social organization established to improve the friendship among its members and the rights and interests of women by Defendant 3, and it has been placed in 13 Dongs within the Dong-gu and recruited female members for each Dong, and has been conducting regular meetings while the head of Dong-gu Dong attends the Dong-gu Office, and has been attending the Dong-gu Office at the time of the event of Dong-gu Office.

1. Violation of the prohibition of the establishment and use of similar agencies and the establishment of private organizations (joint offenses by defendants 6, 3, 4, 2, and 1), illegal election campaigns (joint offenses by defendants 6, 3, and 1) by a person who is unable to engage in an election campaign, and participation in the planning of elections by public officials (joint offenses by defendants 6, 3, and 3);

Local public officials and residents' autonomous council members may not conduct an election campaign or competition campaign, and public officials shall not participate in the planning of an election campaign or in the implementation of such planning by taking advantage of their status, and no person may establish or establish any similar institution, organization, organization, etc. for any person other than the election campaign office or a person intending to become a candidate, regardless of their name, or use any existing institution, organization, organization, or facilities, and in the election, no person may establish or set up any private organization or other organization for the election campaign of a candidate regardless of its name or professed purpose.

Defendant 1, 2, and 4 gathered to establish private organizations and similar organizations using Defendant 3’s organization for the election campaign of Defendant 6, and around that time, Defendant 6 had Defendant 2 recruit mobile lines using Defendant 3’s organization for the election campaign of Defendant 6 from Defendant 2, and received a report on election campaign to the effect that he competes with the organization of Si/Gu council members and party members, and accepted it. around January 25, 2012, Defendant 3 recommended Defendant 2 from the head of Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-dong, Gwangju to introduce the mobile line in this process, and recommended Defendant 2 to send the mobile file to Defendant 1, who was the head of Dong-dong and Dong-dong, for the election campaign of Defendant 6, by using the organization of N. N. N., but it would be desirable to encourage the mobile system to use the organization of N. N., and notified Defendant 1 to Defendant 6, who was the person responsible for election campaign. Based on Defendant 2’s opinion, Defendant 1, 6000.

A. From the end of January 2012, Defendant 1 retired from office as the head of △△1 head from September 1, 2003 to July 8, 2007, Defendant 1 served as the head of △△1 head of the Dong-gu Dong-gu Office. From around 2008 to the head of △△1 Dong-dong Library, Defendant 1 sent the details of the above discussion to Nonindicted Party 1 of the contracting staff, who worked as the head of △△△△1 library. In accordance with the foregoing order, Nonindicted Party 1 sent the private organization group promise to which he belongs, and notified Defendant 6, etc. through Nonindicted Party 13, etc., to attend a meeting and appeal for support, and education for the registration of the mobile competition group to his assistant staff, etc., and caused them to recruit the mobile competition group, etc., on the basis of the △△△△△△ Group’s establishment of the committee for promotion of Nonindicted Party 1 of the Dong-gu 12 of the same month.

As a result, Defendant 6, 4, 2, 3, and 1 established a similar organization at the same time, for Defendant 6’s election campaign, which is the candidate, by holding in sequence with the deceased Nonindicted Party 1, and at the same time established a private organization, such as “△△ Party Emergency Countermeasures Promotion Committee,” and Defendant 6, 3, and 1 were unable to engage in election campaign by public offering in sequential order, and Defendant 6, and 3 participated in election planning by public officials by taking advantage of their status.

B. Around February 2, 2012, Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 2’s place of residence residing in the Dong-dong (name omitted) of Dong-gu, Gwangju, to the same content, and delivered the list and recruitment documents of Nonindicted 2’s place of residence, which was received from Defendant 2, to Nonindicted 2.

On February 2, 2012, Non-Indicted 2 changed part of the competition countermeasure committee members listed in the list from his own house located in Gwangju Dong-dong, Gwangju, and ordered them to educate the countermeasures committee members and the members of the above " Women's Association" to attend the ceremony of opening the candidate office, provide meals to the countermeasures committee members, etc. and to register the mobile competition team at the defendant 6 candidate office, and instruct them to recruit and register the competition team.

As a result, Defendant 6, 4, 2, 3, and 1, through public offering with Nonindicted 2 in sequence, used the private organization of the existing " female council" for the election campaign of Defendant 6, who is a candidate, and established a similar organization, which is a "▽▽2 Election Campaign Committee", and at the same time, established a private organization. Defendant 6, 3, and 1 were engaged in election campaign in sequential public offering, and Defendant 6, and 3 participated in election planning by public officials by using their status.

b. Violation of the method for conducting the competition campaign (joint offenses by the defendants 6, 3, 4, 2, and 1), the improper competition campaign by the persons who are unable to conduct the competition campaign (joint offenses by the defendants 6, 3, and 1), and the participation in the planning of elections by public officials (joint offenses by the defendants 6, 3, and 3);

Local public officials and residents' autonomous council members may not conduct an election campaign and competition campaign, and public officials shall not participate in the planning of an election campaign or in the implementation of such planning by taking advantage of their status, and anyone shall not conduct an election campaign in any manner other than sending name cards by a preliminary candidate after opening an election campaign office or sending promotional materials and e-mail to persons who are not members of a political party in the intraparty competition for which voting rights are given to persons who are not members of a political party and members of a political party

A. Defendant 3 ordered Defendant 2 and 1 to conduct a competition campaign on behalf of Defendant 6, as described in paragraph 1(a). Defendant 6 received reports from Defendant 2 as stated in all of paragraph 1, and consented thereto. Defendant 4, 2, and 1 conspired as stated in the above discussion, and Defendant 1 delivered the same purport to the deceased non-indicted 1 according to Defendant 3’s instruction.

Pursuant to the foregoing instructions, the deceased Nonindicted Party 1: (a) as the head of the Ban, 12 members of the above countermeasures including himself; (b) as the head of the Ban, 4 members below the team; and (c) as a group of members to recruit 1,200 persons totaling 25 persons for each group of members; and (d) each group of members, etc., made a co-rating paper containing Defendant 6’s achievements and carried it in the pocket book, and led them to conduct a competition campaign by encouraging the application for mobile competition while presenting a door-to-door ticket.

Defendant 4 urged Defendant 1 and 2 to frequently verify the status of mobile registration by phone calls, and was reported from Defendant 2 to the effect that Defendant 6 was making efforts to recruit mobile lines.

As a result, Defendants 6, 3, 4, 2, and 1 engaged in the competition campaign in sequence with the deceased Nonindicted Party 1, and at the same time, Defendants 6, 3, and 1 did not participate in the competition campaign by successive public offering, and Defendants 6, 3, and 3 participated in the election planning by using their status.

B. Defendant 3 ordered Defendant 2 and 1 to conduct a competition campaign on behalf of Defendant 6, as described in paragraph 1-B, and Defendant 6 accepted it after receiving a report from Defendant 2 as stated in all of paragraph 1. Defendant 4, 2, and 1 conspired with the above discussions, and Defendant 1 delivered the same purport to Nonindicted 2 according to Defendant 3’s direction.

In the same manner as in the preceding paragraph, Nonindicted 2 sent a text message to the above counter-party members to the effect that “I will attend because Igol Office of Geng-Jeng National Assembly member, which is next to the Geng National Assembly member, is a meeting in the Geng-dong Geng-gu.” At around 10:30 on February 17, 2012, Nonindicted 2 instructed the counter-party 6 candidate office located in Gwangju Dong-dong to provide education related to mobile competition recruitment, and ordered the counter-party 31 to recruit the counter-party 6 candidate while issuing the mobile competition recruitment pocket book to the above members. On February 14 and February 24, 2012, Nonindicted 2 provided the counter-party 31 et al. with meals to the counter-party 31 et al. at the restaurant located in Dong-gu, Gwangju-gu, and recommended the electorate to register the competition campaign as a competition campaign by asserting Defendant 6 candidate support.

Defendant 4 urged Defendant 1 and 2 to frequently verify the status of mobile registration by phone calls, and was reported from Defendant 2 to the effect that Defendant 6 was making efforts to recruit mobile lines.

As a result, Defendants 6, 3, 4, 2, and 1 engaged in a competition campaign in sequence with Nonindicted Party 2, and at the same time, Defendants 6, 3, and 1 did not conduct a competition campaign by successive public offering. Defendants 6, 3, and 3 participated in the election planning by public officials through their status.

3. Election campaign name, provision of money and goods, contribution act by a third party (joint offenses by defendants 3, 4, 2, and 5), order to provide money and goods for election campaign name (joint offenses by defendants 3, 4, and 2);

No one shall make contributions on behalf of a candidate in connection with an election, and no one shall offer or instruct to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowance, actual expenses, or compensation for volunteer service.

Defendant 4, in accordance with the contents of the above discussion with Defendant 2, set up funds in the name of establishment of private organizations and promotion of mobile mobile lines such as those listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, ordered Defendant 5 to offer the above funds to Defendant 1 by consecutive public offering with Defendant 5, and ordered Defendant 1 to divide them into 13 books, such as the deceased Nonindicted 1, etc.

On the other hand, Defendant 3 received from Defendant 1 a report from Defendant 6 that funds were provided, and that they will be divided into two books and accepted.

A. On January 31, 2012, Defendant 4 sent 39 million won to Defendant 5 as election campaign in the vehicle of Defendant 5 in front of Defendant 6 candidate office located in the Dong-dong in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju, with the request from the head of the Gu to the effect that “Defendant 1 has money as the above activity expenses,” and Defendant 5 sent 39 million won as the name of election campaign to Defendant 5. On the same day, Defendant 5 sent 39 million won as the same name to Defendant 1, within the vehicle of the office of the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Gwangju, Dong-gu, Seoul, to the same effect.

B. On February 17, 2012, Defendant 4: (a) within Defendant 5’s vehicle prior to Defendant 6 candidate office located in the Dong-dong, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-dong, Defendant 5 delivered KRW 20 million under the name of election campaign upon Defendant 5’s request to the same purport; and (b) Defendant 5 sent the same intent to Defendant 1, who again gave KRW 20 million to Defendant 1, under the same name, within the vehicle behind the office parking lot located in the Dong-dong, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, the same day.

Accordingly, Defendant 3, 4, 2, and 5 offered to Defendant 1 a contribution act for Defendant 6 candidate in relation to election campaign, and provided money and valuables in relation to election campaign, and Defendant 3, 4, and 2 ordered Defendant 1 to offer it by public offering in sequential order and to offer it to Defendant 1, such as the deceased Nonindicted 1.

4. Election campaign, name, receipt of money and valuables, and acceptance of contribution to a third party (Defendant 1);

No one shall make contributions to, or receive subsidies from, a candidate in connection with an election, and no one shall provide, receive, or instruct to provide, money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, or compensation for volunteer services.

A. On January 31, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 39 million from Defendant 5 under the same name as in the preceding paragraph, within the next parking lot of the office of the Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Gwangju, for the same reasons as in the preceding paragraph.

B. The Defendant received KRW 20 million from Defendant 5 at the same place as before and after February 17, 2012, under the same conditions as before and after the preceding paragraph.

Accordingly, the defendant received money in relation to the election campaign at the same time as receiving a contribution act for the defendant 6 candidate in relation to the election.

5. Contributions (Defendant 3);

The head of a local government shall not make a contribution to a person in the relevant constituency or an institution, organization, or facility, or a person who has relations with the electorate, or an institution, organization, or facility outside the relevant constituency.

At around 10:00 on January 16, 2012, the Defendant provided money and valuables equivalent to KRW 140,000,000 in total, for a lot department store gift certificates, to the head of the Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-gu, Gwangju, and to the head of Dong-gu Green Women's Council, including Nonindicted Party 2, and to the head of Dong-gu Green Women's Council and 14 representative.

Accordingly, the defendant, the head of a local government, made contributions to electorates.

6. Resident registration in a fraudulent manner (Defendant 4);

No false report on the resident registration shall be made with the intention of casting the vote in a specific election district from 180 days before the record date for the preparation of the electoral register.

On February 16, 2012, the Defendant resided with his family in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter address 1 omitted), and filed a false report on February 16, 2012 at the Busan Dong-gu Office where Defendant 6 candidates moved in for the purpose of casting a vote in the Dong-gu Office where he left the Dong-gu Office where he had no fixed residence in Gwangju for the election campaign of Defendant 6 candidates.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false report on the resident registration before the expiration date of the pollbook preparation for the purpose of casting a vote in Gwangju Dong-gu.

7. Preliminary election campaign (Defendant 2);

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Act, no election campaign shall be carried out by propaganda facilities and tools or various printed materials, broadcasting, newspapers, news communications, magazines, other publications, campaign meetings, symposiums, debate, debate, native folks meeting, alumni meetings, neighbors' meeting, other assemblies, information and communications, the establishment of an election campaign organization or private organization, door-to-door visits or other methods prior to the election campaign period.

A. On January 31, 2012, the Defendant stated that “I, at the cafeteria of the "Grandosan" located in the Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter address 4 omitted), “I,” the 14 members of the above Women’s Association, the president of the general affairs, and each of the 14 members of the Dong-gu Council, dump, dump, at the presence of the above Women’s Council, dump.

B. On February 21, 2012, the Defendant called “art restaurant” located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, that “I will well request Defendant 6 members of the said Women’s Association, the president of the general affairs, and the 14 representatives of each Dong-dong. I will think it is true. I will think it will be good if I think it is true, and the number will not increase if we are five again.”

Accordingly, the defendant carried out an election campaign in a way other than that prescribed by law.

" 2012 Gohap393"

8. Offering money and goods related to the election campaign, and making contributions to a third party (Defendant 1);

No person shall make contributions on behalf of a candidate in connection with an election, and no person shall provide, or promise, direct, induce, mediate, request or receive money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, other compensation for volunteers, except in cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had attempted to deliver each of the money listed in the above paragraph (3) to each Dong book according to the direction.

A. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 33

On February 3, 2012, the Defendant offered KRW 1 million to Nonindicted 33 at the apartment parking lot of Taedong-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City (name omitted), along with the Defendant’s request to the effect that “Defendant 6 would have contributed to the national competition and carried out a very hot election campaign so that he can be elected in the election of National Assembly members.”

B. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 34

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 1.5 million to Nonindicted 34 in front of the Seodong-dong Shipbuilding University at Seodong-gu, Gwangju, with the above request, and KRW 1.5 million on the roads below the road on the 17th of the same month, under the following conditions.

C. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 30

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 100,000,00 to Nonindicted 30 at the head office of the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

D. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 35

On January 31, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 1,50,000 to Nonindicted 35 at the front of the new parking lot located in Geumnam-gu, Gwangju, by requesting it as above, and provided KRW 1,00,000 under the same name at the same place on February 17, 201.

E. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 36

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 1.5 million at the same place on February 17, 2012, when requesting Nonindicted 36 to submit the above request, and provided KRW 1.5 million at the same time and under the same name at the same time.

F. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 37

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 1,50,000 to Nonindicted 37 upon the request as above on the roads in the Dong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, and provided KRW 2 million on February 17, 201 on the roads in front of the water library in mountain-dong.

G. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 38

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 1,00,000 to Nonindicted 38 at the Defendant’s restaurant in Gwangju Dong-gu (hereinafter address 3 omitted).

H. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 39

On January 31, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 1 million upon receipt of the above request from Nonindicted 39 in front of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City 1-dong community service center.

I. Offering money and valuables to Nonindicted 40

On February 1, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 3 million upon requesting Nonindicted 40,000 to Nonindicted 40, prior to the subway station in Gwangju Dong-dong, Gwangju, by requesting as above.

" 2012 Gohap395"

At around 19:00 on January 17, 2012, Defendant 3: (a) was reported by Nonindicted 19, the chief secretary of the non-indicted 19, to hold a meeting of the head of the Dong-dong Dong-gu Dong-gu Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-gu, (hereinafter referred to as “head of the Dong”) at the cafeteria-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si at around 18:30 on January 19, 2012; (b) notified Nonindicted 19 to the members of the Si Council of Gwangju Metropolitan City, which carried out Defendant 6 on January 17, 2012; and (c) reported Nonindicted 15 to Defendant 6 the head of the Dong’s meeting

9. A violation of prohibition against exercising influence by public officials, etc. (Defendant 3).

No public official shall promote the achievements of a specific political party or a candidate (including a person intending to be a candidate) toward the personnel under his/her control or the electorate, regardless of the pretext of education or whatever.

그럼에도, 피고인은 2012. 1. 19. 19:00~21:00경 ◇◇◇ 식당에서 제19대 광주 동구 국회의원 선거 입후보 예정자인 피고인 6이 참석한 가운데, ◐◐동장인 공소외 57 등 광주동구청 소속 동장 13명을 상대로 “동구 관내 재개발과 관련하여 조기 착공이 지연되자 피고인 6 의원이 전국 지자체장 최초로 공소외 10 공소외 11 공사 사장과의 만남을 주선하여 주었다”, “충장로에 있는 공소외 12 은행 건물 매각과 관련하여 우리 구에서 매입하려고 하였는데, 그때도 피고인 6 의원이 도와줘 은행장을 만나 이야기할 수 있었다”, “동명동 지식산업센터 완공에 300억이 드는데, 피고인 6 의원이 1차로 60억을 확보해주었다”, “동구의 작은 도서관들이 국회도서관으로부터 도서를 기증받았는데 피고인 6 의원이 중간에서 도서 확보에 애를 쓰셨다”라는 등의 발언을 하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant promoted the achievements of the defendant 6, who is the candidate for the election of the National Assembly member of the 19th Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Gwangju.

10. Preliminary election campaign (Defendant 6);

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Public Official Election Act, no election campaign shall be conducted by means of propaganda facilities or tools, various printed materials, broadcasting, newspapers, news communications, magazines, other publications, campaign meetings, debate meetings, debate meetings, native folks meetings, alumni meetings, neighbors' meetings, other assemblies, information and communications, the establishment of an election campaign organization or private organization, door-to-door visits, or other methods prior to the election campaign period.

The election campaign period for the National Assembly member of the 19th National Assembly was from March 29, 2012 to April 10, 2012, and the defendant was registered as a preliminary candidate for the Gwangju Dong-gu constituency in February 1, 2012, and thus, it was impossible to carry out an election campaign that can be done as a preliminary candidate, such as personally making a name, photograph, telephone number, academic background, career, and other matters necessary for publicity, or filing an appeal for support.

그럼에도, 피고인은 2012. 1. 19. 19:00~21:00경 ◇◇◇ 식당에서 ◐◐동장인 공소외 57 등 광주 동구청 소속 동장 13명을 상대로 “이번 선거에 법 테두리 내에서 도와주십시오”, “보성에서 태어나 동구에서 학교를 다녔고, 어머니가 남광주시장에서 일하면서 공부시켰다, 나도 동구민이다”, “동명동 지식산업센터 예산 확보에 어려움이 있었는데 60억 원이 확보되도록 노력했다”, “공소외 11 공사사장 면담도 구청장이 적극적으로 도와달라고 하여 사장을 만나게 해주었다”라는 등의 지지호소 및 자신의 업적 홍보성 발언 등을 하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant carried out an election campaign prior to the election campaign period of the 19th National Assembly member election.

[2102 Gohap283, 393, 394]

Each fact of No. 1 and No. 2

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. The witness’s each legal statement in each part of Defendant 1, 2, 2, and 4

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1, 2, and 4 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 43, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 37

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 48, and Nonindicted 33

1. Each trend report (Articles 82 through 94), the results of selection of persons eligible for mobile voting (Article 29), the list of persons responsible for the organization of △△-dong Emergency Countermeasures Promotion Committee, the current status of the organization of △△-dong Emergency Countermeasures Committee, documents produced by Defendant 6, investigation reports (non-indicted 8 mobile phones telephone calls and Sms), investigation reports (non-indicted 8 mobile phones recorded on Defendant 2 mobile phones), investigation reports (the voice files with Defendant 6 recorded on Defendant 2 mobile phones), investigation reports (the execution of Non-indicted 49 and Defendant 2 e-mail), Non-indicted 49 solicitation persons, the mail files sent by Non-indicted 49, the mail files sent by Non-indicted 49 (the face-to-face photo) to him, the mebology, education schedule, the △△-dong emergency Countermeasures Committee, the list of women committee members, the list of cell phone applicants (the non-indicted 200, the non-indicted 49 and the non-indicted 492).

each fact of Nos. 3, 4, and 8 of the ruling

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 1, and 5;

1. The criminal defendant 5 and 1's each legal statement;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 2, 1, and 5 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 39, and Nonindicted 40

1. A criminal investigation report (the telephone conversations between the defendant 1-the defendant 5), time series analysis, investigation report (the telephone conversations between the defendant 4-the defendant 5);

The facts of the judgment No. 5

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 52, and Nonindicted 53

1. The statement of Nonindicted 19

Facts No. 6 of the ruling

1. Defendant 4's legal statement

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendant 2 by the prosecution;

Each fact set forth in the judgment No. 7

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 50

[2012 Gohap395]

Each fact of Nos. 9 and 10 in the holding

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 17

1. The witness’s respective legal statements in each of Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 55, and Nonindicted 56

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 15

1. Each police station and prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 29

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant 1: Each of the following facts: Article 255(1)13, Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment and use of similar organizations); Articles 255(1)11, and 87(2) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of private organizations); Article 255(1)2, and Article 60(1)7 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 255(2)3, and Article 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 55(1)1, Article 57-6(1), and Article 57(1)7 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 57(1)30 of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the former Public Official Election Act (the same shall apply)

B. Defendant 2: Articles 255(1)13 and 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment and use of similar institutions); Articles 255(1)11 and 87(2) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of private organizations); Articles 255(2)3 and 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 230(3) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 230(3)4 and Article 135(3) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 25(3)11 of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 30(1)30(1)5)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 25(2) of the former Public Official Election Act

(c) Defendant 3: Each of the following facts: Article 25(1)13, Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Establishment and Use of Similar Organizations); Article 25(1)11, Article 87(2) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Establishment of Private Organizations); Article 255(1)2, Article 60(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 25(1)10, Article 86(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 10 of the Criminal Act; Article 5(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 5(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 5(2)3 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 55(1)3 and Article 57-3(1) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 5(16(1)

(d) Defendant 4: Articles 255(1)13 and 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment and use of similar institutions); Articles 255(1)11 and 87(2) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of private organizations); Articles 255(2)3 and 57-3(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 230(1)4 and Article 135(3) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money and goods related to election campaign); Article 230(3)4 and Article 135(3) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30(1)30(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 15(1)7) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30(1) of the former Public Official Election Act

(e) Defendant 5: Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the former Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money and valuables related to election campaign), Articles 257(1)1, 115 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money and valuables related to election campaign), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money and valuables)

F. Defendant 6: Each of the public official election laws: Articles 255(1)13 and 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment and use of similar institutions); Articles 255(1)11 and 87(2) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of private organizations); Articles 255(1)2 and 60(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 255(1)10 of the Criminal Act; Article 86(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 25(1)3 and 57-3(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 255(2)3 and 57-4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 5(1)6(2)4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 50-1 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Commercial competition;

Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 1: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

【Related Parts of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 at the Market】

I. Relevant legal principles

1. The meaning of the public offering

In the establishment of co-offenders, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is sufficient if there is an implicit communication with each other on the joint execution of a crime directly or indirectly, and it can be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules without any direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3169, Mar. 9, 199). In the conspiracy of co-principals, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of intent to realize a crime through joint processing of crimes by two or more persons. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intention is made in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the execution, the conspiracy is held liable as a co-principal for the other co-principal’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13584, Dec. 23, 2010).

2. Relationship between an election campaign and a competition campaign and the nature of each committee in this case;

The term "election campaign" in the Public Official Election Act means an act to be elected or to be elected or not to be elected (Article 58(1)), and Article 2 of the same Act provides that "this Act shall apply to the presidential election, election of National Assembly members, election of local council members, and the election of the head of local government (hereinafter referred to as "election for public office")," and Article 57-2 of the same Act provides that the competition lines for recommending candidates for public office by political parties are separately provided.

Therefore, the term "election campaign" means an act for the success or defeat in an election for a public office, and the act for the success or defeat in an election at a competition for the election of a political party recommending candidates to participate in an election for a public office does not constitute "election campaign". However, where it can be evaluated that an act for the success or defeat in an election for a public office is an act for the election or defeat in an election in an election for a public office, it can be viewed as an election campaign to the extent that such act is actually conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do305, Jul. 8, 2003; 2004Do7549, Jan. 13, 2005). Specifically, in determining whether an act constitutes an election campaign, not only the pretext of such act, but also the pattern of such act, i.e., the time, place, method, etc. of the act to participate in the election is an act involving the election or defeat of a specific candidate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20078Do86.

According to the evidence duly reviewed and adopted by the court, the following facts were revealed: ① Defendant 2 and Defendant 6 referred to as “the official election is immediately elected,” and the primary election to elect a candidate for political party in the election of public officials was significant; ② The members of the instant “△△△ 1 Emergency Countermeasures Promotion Committee” and “△△2 Election Countermeasures Committee” are recruited to attract a mobile competition group to support Defendant 6 in the competitive election for Defendant 6’s election of the National Assembly members; the private group was organized to enable Defendant 6 to attend the private group and appeal for support; ③ Defendant 6 was allowed to raise a mobile competition group to support Defendant 6; ③ Defendant 6’s participation at the private group was distributed to Defendant 6’s name or public relations hosting with Defendant 6’s achievements by using each committee of this case. In light of the fact that Defendant 2 and Defendant 6 simply recruited mobile competition groups supporting Defendant 6 beyond the mobile competition recruitment itself, the purpose of each of the instant committee can be acknowledged.

In full view of the above facts, the instant “△△△ 1’s Emergency Countermeasures Promotion Committee” and “△△△2’s Election Campaign Committee” are private organizations and similar organizations established for the election campaign aimed at promoting Defendant 6’s election in the election of the 19th National Assembly members of the Republic of Korea. The act of allowing Defendant 6 to recruit mobile competition teams using each of the above committees goes beyond simply preparing for the competition campaign to the extent that Defendant 6 is recruited. Ultimately, the election campaign and the election campaign are all criminal facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the holding, and the money and valuables provided in paragraphs 3 of the holding are not simply provided in relation to the election campaign, but also provided in relation to the election campaign.

II. Defendant 4

1. Summary of the assertion

There is no fact that he has offered criminal facts of the 1, 2, and 3 of his holding. In particular, there is no delivery of money and valuables in relation to the 3th of the holding.

2. Determination

A. Statement of the defendant 1, 2, and 5

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 acknowledged the fact that Defendant 1, 2, and 4 mobilized the organization of Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 discussed the following matters in the course of discussions on police lines and election measures from the prosecution to this court. Defendant 1 recognized the fact that Defendant 5 received money from Defendant 5, as stated in paragraph 3 of the judgment from the prosecution to this court. Defendant 5 recognized the fact that Defendant 3 delivered money from Defendant 4 to Defendant 1, as described in paragraph 3 of the judgment, from the prosecution to this court. Defendant 5 recognized the fact that Defendant 3 delivered money from Defendant 4 to this court.

특히 피고인 1은 검찰에서 피고인 4가 범행을 계속 부인하자, 제7회 피의자신문 마지막에 ‘참고로 더 할말이 있는가요’라는 검사의 질문에 ‘없습니다, 다만, 저한테 일 시켜놓고 자기네들은 잘못이 없다거나 관여하지 않다고 하는 피고인 4가 밉습니다, 피고인 4가 조사받는 모습을 봤는데, ‘인정할 수 없다, 그런 사실 없다’라고 말하는 것을 보니까 좀 화가 나더라고요(제4401쪽)’라고, 제8회 피의자 신문에서 ‘(피고인 4가) 계속해서 그런 부분에 대해 부인한다면 저와 대질시켜주십시오(제4554쪽)’라고 진술하기도 하였다.

Each of the statements made by Defendant 1, 2, and 5 at the prosecution and court room do not seem to be reliable. Although the time and place on which there was a discussion between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 was conducted between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is somewhat certain, this is merely a part that is not thereby without prejudice to the credibility of Defendant 1, 2, and 5’s statements. There is no circumstance that Defendant 1, 2, and 5 made a false statement with Defendant 4.

B. Other evidence

① Defendant 4 was present in the court as a witness, and was unaware of whether Defendant 1 was in his work as a witness, and was unable to hear Defendant 2 in detail about the selection organization for mobile voters, and Defendant 2 was aware of this part, and Defendant 1 made a statement to Defendant 1, who urged Defendant 1 to recruit competition more than five times, is contradictory to each other.

As to this, Defendant 1 was willing to encourage the prosecution to directly call to Defendant 4 and to encourage the recruitment status of mobile lines, but it is more natural that Defendant 4 made a statement that he had made a call since he paid money. The reasons why Defendant 4 called Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 are more natural.

② According to Defendant 1, 5, and 4’s monetary records, Defendant 5 calls to Defendant 4 on January 31, 2012, on which the money was delivered, and thereafter calls to Defendant 5 on February 17, 2012, Defendant 5 again calls to Defendant 1 within a short time. The address of the base station is consistent with the date and place of criminal facts indicated in the judgment, such as Defendant 5’s home-based address, Defendant 6’s candidate office, and branch office of the Dong-dong, where money was delivered.

③ Considering the friendly relationship between Defendant 4 and Defendant 1, it seems reasonable to deliver money directly by Defendant 4 through Defendant 5 by extinguishing the money to the Republic of Korea, China and Future Planning. According to Defendant 5’s statement, Defendant 4 may ask Defendant 5 about the relationship with Defendant 1, thereby supporting these circumstances.

④ Defendant 4’s act of preparing and delivering money to divide into 13 books is an act closely related to the act of engaging in competition and election campaign by using private organizations, etc. as listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the holding, thereby supporting the public offering for the criminal acts listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the holding.

C. Sub-committee

As long as Defendant 4 and Defendant 2 discussed the same facts as the underlying facts in the judgment and paid money, it can be recognized that there was a public offering of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment. Accordingly, Defendant 4 and his defense counsel’s assertion are not accepted.

III. Defendant 3

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant did not gather the defendant 2, 1 and give orders in sequence to commit the crime as stated in the facts constituting the crimes of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the judgment (in particular, the prosecutor's statement made by the defendant 2 and 1 is reversed and it is not reliable).

2. Whether there is a public offering under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the judgment;

A. Whether Defendant 2’s statement was reliable

1) Statement to an investigative agency

Defendant 2 at the prosecution:

① In the first interrogation of suspect, the fact that “the head of the Gu has urged the participation of Defendant 3 in mobile light or on-site voting using an organization that had been previously grixed by Defendant 3’s thickness. The head of the 3 National Police Agency stated that the head of the 3 National Police Agency would make the whole tour of the Gu because he was flicking the Gu administration (No. 3461 pages),” and that he recommended the National Police Agency to encourage the members of the Dong-gu Women’s Republic of Korea, Gu Council, or the City Council (No. 3464 pages),”

② During the second interrogation, “No. 3 or election, and the head of the Gu, was well aware of the fact that the movement, the head of the Gu, was aware of the fact that the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, sought from the head of the Gu, using the core athletes and supporters of the head of the Gu, who are located in each Dong, to recruit a mobile ballot competition competition team. Moreover, the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu have discussed in a broad manner as to how to select and use each Dong. For example, in △△△△ 1 Dong, the figures, such as Nonindicted Party 1 and △△△△△○2, were deemed to have been the figures of Nonindicted Party 2, etc. (Article 3918 pages)”

③ At the fourth suspect interrogation, the head of the Gu entered the office on January 25, 2012 through the head of the visa around 1:30 minutes:0 p.m., and reported about about 30 minutes to the head of the Gu on his work book. The head of the Gu verbally stated, “If a light-line is turned out, he would be able to get a light by using the head of the agency’s organization.” The fact that the election expenses are naturally accompanied by the mobilization of the organization is that the head of the agency and the head of the local government should report on the specific amount of the election expenses, and that Defendant 1 should report it later, “I would not do so separately,” and “I would have dump to receive a large number of electors in consultation with him as a public official’s status.” (Article 4183, Apr. 184, 184).

The statement was stated as follows.

(ii) a statement in court;

Defendant 2 appeared as a witness on the fourth trial date, and stated that “I have a fluent book that the head of the National Police Agency made the fluent book to the extent that I had the fluent character written,” “I have the fluent character to the fluent character,” “I have talked with the head of the National Police Agency’s thickness that “I have the status of a public official, I have the fluent character, I have the fluent character, I have the fluent character,” and “(fluent book with respect to the fluent book).” This is because I have concluded that I have the fluent character or its part.”

3) The statement made by Defendant 2 in an investigative agency is voluntary and specific, and there is no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness, such as pressure or revolving, and there is no assertion as to the voluntariness. Examining the changes in the statement made by an investigative agency, it is merely a statement to the extent that Defendant 2 denied the relationship between Defendant 3 and Defendant 3 at the time of the first interrogation, but it was merely a statement to the extent that Defendant 2 asked Defendant 3 to encourage the investigation agency. However, when the second interrogation is conducted on the basis of objective evidence, it was true that Defendant 2 had been aware of how the case will proceed if he knows, and how it is possible to know about how the case will proceed. However, it is natural to view that the statement made by Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 was a change in the credibility of the statement made by the investigative agency.

On the other hand, according to the credibility of the statement in the court, Defendant 2 explained that “the statement that he first gets married before the investigation agency was not necessary to do so.” However, Defendant 2’s mobilization of Defendant 3’s organization for the election campaign against Defendant 6 by Defendant 3 is an important fact that Defendant 3 sent the statement, and thus, it is not a sufficient explanation to understand the reversal of the statement.

In addition, according to the prosecutor’s interview records and recording records with Defendant 2, it can be acknowledged that Nonindicted 5’s statement that “Defendant 3 sent to Defendant 2,” in the process of meeting Defendant 2 continuously after prosecution, appears to have been instigated and heard. In full view of these circumstances, the credibility of Defendant 2’s statement in the court room is doubtful.

B. Defendant 1’s statement and its credibility

1) Statement to an investigative agency

Defendant 1 at the Prosecution:

① In the first interrogation of suspect, Defendant 2’s instructions sent to Nonindicted 2 the list of Nonindicted 2, which was the ▽▽2-dong Security Committee, was led to confession, and Defendant 3 was unaware of the fact in relation to the recruitment of mobile lines. Such statements were also maintained even during the second and third interrogation of suspect.

② 제4회 피의자신문에서는 ‘사실은 피고인 2 정책실장이 청장님의 지시를 받고 청장님의 과거 선거를 도왔던 13개 동에 핵심 운동원들이 기재되어 있는 명단 13개를 메일로 보내면서, ‘청장님과 이야기가 되었으니 메일을 확인하고 추진할 수 있는 사람은 추가하라’고 하였습니다(제3927쪽)’, ‘먼저 제가 피고인 2로부터 메일을 받고 나서 청장님께 만나자고 하여 청장님 관사 옆 과학관 도로 안쪽에서 만나 ♡실장이 알려준대로 모바일경선인단을 모집하라고 시키면 되냐고 물었더니 청장님이 ▽▽1동을 제외한 동책을 정해주면서 그 사람들을 중심으로 모바일경선인단을 모집하면 된다고 하였습니다. 이후 피고인 6 후보의 보좌관인 피고인 4가 1. 31.경 13개 동 동책들에게 300만 원씩 주라는 의미로 5만원권으로 된 3,900만 원이 담긴 은행용 봉투를 동명교회 앞 주차장에서 저에게 주었습니다. 그래서 제가 써야할 돈 5만원권 100장 한 묶음을 빼서 제가 쓰기로 하고 나머지 3,400만 원을 가지고 청장님께 3,900만 원이 피고인 6 사무실에서 지원되었다고 말씀드리면서 △△1동은 저와 특별한 관계가 없으니 청장님께서 알아서 챙겨주십시요라고 말하고 저는 3,400만 원을 가지고 나머지 동책들에게 300만 원 또는 200만 원씩 골고루 나눠 주었습니다(제3928쪽)’, ‘결국, 피고인 2가 구청장의 사조직을 이용하여 모바일경선인단을 모집하여 경선에서 승리하자는 기획 하에 구청장의 동의를 얻어 다시 구청장의 지시를 받은 피의자가 피고인 6 후보의 보좌관인 피고인 4로부터 돈을 받아 각 동책들에게 돈을 나눠준 것이지요’라는 검사의 질문에 ‘네, 그렇습니다(제3930쪽)’라고 진술하였고,

③ In the 8th suspect interrogation, the prosecutor’s question at the prosecutor’s question that “I would like to say that money was provided or would have been provided at the lower office to the head of the Defendant 3,” and that “I would like to give money at the lower office, although I would not well memory at any time, I would like to give money at the lower office.” The head of the Gu so called “I would like to have been drank with my opinion” (Article 4554).

The statement was stated as follows.

(ii) a statement in court;

① Defendant 1 appeared as a witness on the second trial date, and responded to the prosecutor’s question, “I do not know about what Defendant 3 was in fact after receiving e-mail,” and asked the prosecutor’s question, “I do not know about a correct place,” and “I do not know about a certain place when Defendant 3 was able to do so,” and “I would like to answer the prosecutor’s question, “I do not know about how I would receive e-mail from Defendant 2”. Defendant 3 asked Defendant 3 at the prosecutor’s question, “I will tell about how I would receive e-mail”, and “I speak about what I would me know about, and satt it.”

② At the third trial date, the prosecutor asked that “I would have been aware that I would have received a daily treatment in consultation with Defendant 2’s office because I would have received a special speech,” and “I would have been aware that I would have received it well,” to the prosecutor’s question, “I would have presented to see that I would have been able to do so,” and “I would have been able to do so.”

③ At the third trial date, Defendant 3’s defense counsel’s answer to “the same question as the one in question” was presented, and thereafter, Defendant 3 responded that the relevance with Defendant 3 is denied or memory is not presented.

3) Examining the change in Defendant 1’s statement in the investigative agency, the first front part of the investigation agency was examined. In other words, Defendant 1 made the statement related to Defendant 3 at the prosecutor’s investigation agency. After the detention, Defendant 2 made the statement at the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant 1 started to make a statement about the facts related to Defendant 3, and the content of the statement was merely known that Defendant 3 knew of the organization use, and Defendant 3 made a report on the monetary portion to Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 made an implied statement. In addition, Defendant 1 was one of the last part of Defendant 3’s criminal facts, and Defendant 3 made a false statement due to Defendant 3’s confession, and there is no circumstance to make a false statement about the facts related to Defendant 3. As such, the credibility of the statement related to Defendant 3 is high in view of the change in the process of statement, the body and body of the body, and the relationship between Defendant 1 and Defendant 3.

On the other hand, Defendant 1 made a partial statement that seems consistent with the statement made by an investigative agency on the second trial date, but he respondeded to the place where Defendant 3, who made a statement “science museum,” at the prosecutor’s office, confirmed that he did not memory at the place where he had confirmed his intention, and stated that he did not speak in the prosecutor’s investigation. On the third trial date thereafter, Defendant 1 made consistent statement to the effect that he did not reverse or memory the statement made by the investigative agency.

However, there is room to view that, in light of the relationship between Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 3 reversed the statement by bearing the burden of recognizing all of the statements in the investigative agency present at the court. As such, the credibility of Defendant 1’s statement in the court is doubtful.

C. Defendant 3’s statement and its credibility

Defendant 3 stated in the second suspect newspaper at the prosecution that “(Defendant 2A) mobile light line was introduced, and in South, the light line was to be engaged in a large number of solicitations of mobile light line. I present the list of the Countermeasure Committee for each Dong, “( received a report)”, and “I think it is not a positive reply to do so.” (No. 4090 pages), “I think it is a positive reply to encourage each book to recruit mobile light line,” and “I know the fact that Defendant 1 has urged each book to recruit mobile light line,” and “I knew and knew the fact that I knew that I knew the fact that I knew that I would like to attract mobile light light.”

In the third suspect interrogation, the prosecutor re-written the statement that Defendant 2 “at that time, Defendant 2 introduced the front line to the suspect, and that Defendant 2 made a statement to the suspect that Defendant 2 made it appropriate for the suspect to have made the list of the Counterterrorism Commission to read Defendant 2 “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn?” and re-written the statement that it is positive meaning as “Ahhhhhhhhhhhn

As to this, Defendant 3 made a statement to the effect that this is negative and negative in the court, and that the statement was sent to Defendant 2, and that it was reversed by the prosecutor’s office. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that he did not have any means to reverse his statement. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that he did not have any means to make the statement to the effect that he did not have any means to make the statement to the prosecutor’s office. However, Defendant 3 was present at the time of interrogation of the suspect by the defense counsel at the time of interrogation of the suspect. The time when this statement was made is not immediately after the arrest of Defendant 1 and 2. Moreover, it is difficult to understand that Defendant 3 did not make any statement to the same effect in the circumstance that Defendant 3 was investigated due to Defendant 1 and 2’s statement. Ultimately, Defendant 3’s statement to the investigative agency is more reliable than the statement in the court.

Even according to the statement made by Defendant 3 at the court, Defendant 2 reported to Defendant 3 the fact that Defendant 3 uses the organization of Defendant 3 in the office of the Administrator, and it is recognized that Defendant 1 confirmed Defendant 3’s intention on the side of the road inside the science museum.

(d) Other evidence.

① While Defendant 2 appeared as a witness in the court and reversed part of his statement made by an investigative agency as above, Defendant 2 recognized the fact as to who included himself in the Racing Committee under the pretext of Defendant 3 and the core athletes.

② 망 공소외 1이 사망 직전인 2012. 2. 26. 18:12경 공소외 6에게 ‘동구청장이 직접 독려하고 있고, 공소외 7, 공소외 8 있음’이라는 문자메시지를 보냈고, 공소외 6은 경선대책위원회 등에 포함되지 않는 사람이며, 둘 사이의 관계를 고려하여 볼 때, 허위의 내용이라고 볼 수 없다. 피고인 1은 공소외 2에게 2012. 2. 26. 12:45경 ‘여성회 회장님들 독려좀부탁드립니다~~ ^ 영감님지시’라는 문사메시지를 보냈고, ‘영감님’은 당연히 피고인 3이라고 진술하였다. 망 공소외 1은 공소외 9에게 2012. 2. 14. ‘내일 오전 중으로 25명을 꼭 제출해 주시기 바랍니다. 오후에 청장님께 보고해야합니다’라는 문자메시지를 보냈다.

③ Nonindicted 37 made a statement at the prosecution that there was a fact that “When an opportunity is given, Defendant 6’s election campaign” had been heard by Defendant 3 (Nonindicted 37 was present at the court as a witness and made a statement that seems to reverse such a statement in the court; however, it is unclear about how to reverse it, and it is not clear how to reverse it, and thus, it is not persuasive, and thus, Nonindicted 37’s legal statement is not reliable).

④ A large number of people included in the list of “△△△△△-dong Emergency Measures Promotion Committee” and “▽△2-dong Election Countermeasures Committee” are deemed to be unable to use and organize an organization consisting of such people without the involvement or permission of Defendant 3, such as the recognition of a pro-friendly relationship between Defendant 3 and Defendant 3 through text messages.

⑤ Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 appears to have not been able to either use the organization or organize the “Racing Countermeasures Committee” with the above figures with Defendant 3’s consent. If Defendant 1 and 2 were able to use the organization without Defendant 3’s consent, there is no reason for Defendant 1 and 2 to report it to Defendant 3 and confirm the intention.

E. Sub-committee

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant 3 may recognize the facts of the crime set forth in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the judgment that Defendant 3 conspiredd with Defendant 1 and 2 in sequential order. In addition, Defendant 2 reported to Defendant 3 about the use of Defendant 3’s organization for Defendant 6’s election campaign around January 25, 2012 to Defendant 3, insofar as Defendant 3 does not dispute, it is insufficient to reverse the aforementioned recognition solely on the basis of a somewhat different time difference, such as that Defendant 3 was in another place during the o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’

IV. Defendant 6

1. Summary of the assertion

There is no contest in relation to the first and second provisions of the judgment. Even if the contest is recognized, the act stated in the facts charged is an election campaign, and it does not constitute an election campaign, and it is merely an act of preparing the competition campaign, not an election campaign.

2. Whether there is a public offering in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment;

A. Defendant 2’s statement

1) Statement to an investigative agency

Defendant 2 at the prosecution:

① In the fourth suspect interrogation, Defendant 6 told Defendant 6 member of the Gu that “I would encourage mobile light-line and recruit light-line groups by using the organization at the head of the Gu,” and “I know that I would know. I would like to recruit a mobile light-line group at the location of Defendant 6’s office, each of the chairman of the Dong-gu Council stated that I would invite a mobile light-line group along with the organization of the party office and the head of the Gu at the location of Defendant 6’s office, and the Si Council member was tensiond because the head of the Gu’s organization was dissipatedd, and said member tolded to do so (No. 4186 pages).”

② In the fifth suspect interrogation, it is true that he reported to Defendant 6 that he would recruit a mobile registrant using the organization of the head of the Gu while presenting the direction of election policy. However, he may know whether the head of the Gu was aware of the fact that he was affiliated with the organization (No. 4561).

③ On April 4, 2012, I reported to Defendant 6 candidates from time to time, such as D, N, N, N, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, P, and P, P, P, P, and P, P, P, P, P, P, and P.

The statement was stated as follows.

(ii) a statement in court;

① Defendant 2 reversed the part of the statement on the meaning that he reported to Defendant 6 without attending the court as a witness.

② In appearance as a witness on the fourth trial date, I stated that the prosecutor's question "at the time of appearance as a witness, the party executives, the Gu Council members, and the workers on duty belonging to the Democratic Party members' council members make efforts to be the candidates for Defendant 6, and the head of the Gu with experience in election for 2 years prior to the organization of the head of the Gu makes efforts to be a film for Defendant 6, and whether there is a fact that both organizations compete in the competition as a box and talk that it would be suitable for the recruitment of a mobile competition group," and the prosecutor's question "at the time of appearance that Defendant 6 candidates heard the witness's speech and expressed any opposition to the witness's speech," "I will not verify the name of the witness," and "I will know that the prosecutor's questions about the organization "I will correct."

③ At the 9th trial, I asked Defendant 6’s counsel’s inquiry that “I would like to give one time,” “I would like to make a statement to the effect that I would like to do so,” and “I would like to know that I would like to use all organizations that could be operated by the organization and head of the Gu,” and “I would like to know that I would like to know that I would have known that I would have known that I will participate in the solicitation of the mobile elector to the extent that I would have known that I would have known that I would have known that I would have to operate the organization and head of the Gu,” and “I would like to know that I would have known that I would have known that I would have to operate the organization and head of the Gu as I had increased in the ordinary book.”

was stated.

3) The credibility of the statement made by Defendant 2 at an investigative agency is high in light of the following: (a) there is no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness; (b) the content thereof is voluntary and specific; and (c) the relationship between Defendant 2 and Defendant 6 is difficult to deem that Defendant 6 made a false statement unfavorable to Defendant 6. On the other hand, the statement made at the court shows the attitude of avoiding a clear answer to questions of the prosecutor or defense counsel; and (c) the statement reversed the statement made by the prosecutor but reversed it without any persuasive explanation; and (d) the reason to reverse it is also ambiguous.

(b) Other evidence

① Defendant 4’s regular assistant officer, based on Defendant 6’s statement, is a person in charge of Defendant 6’s election campaign and mainly discussed Defendant 6’s election campaign measures. Defendant 4, from among the competition countermeasures discussed, stated that Defendant 6 reported matters to Defendant 6. However, as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, Defendant 4 participated in deep-depth deliberation, such as participating in the first discussion process of the instant crime, and provided money and valuables as indicated in paragraph 3 of the judgment. Considering Defendant 4’s position, Defendant 4’s independent crime committed without Defendant 6’s instruction is against empirical rule.

② Defendant 5 performed Defendant 6 from the time when Defendant 6 was a member of the National Assembly in the 16th local constituency. Defendant 5 was the lowest side of Defendant 6, who performed Defendant 6 under the name of the 18th National Assembly member, and received money and valuables as indicated in the instant crime, as indicated in paragraph (3) of the same Article.

③ According to the second day of Nonindicted 49, who is another assistant of Defendant 6, Nonindicted 13, etc., the fact that Nonindicted 13, etc. reported the same list as the list of “△△△dong Emergency Countermeasures Promotion Committee” to Nonindicted 49.

④ Defendant 6 voluntarily made a statement against Si/Gu council members that 5,00 Gu council members and 3,000 Gu council members were to recruit the Si council members and to reflect them in the Gongcheon. In particular, Defendant 2 made a statement that Defendant 6 had a lot of talked to the effect that Defendant 6 would encourage Defendant 2 to recruit mobile competition groups. However, Nonindicted 13, who was present at that place, stated that “the total number of electors, 5,000 Gu council members, 2,000 Gu council members, and 2,00 council members, submitted the thickness of the Gu council members.” Nonindicted 13, along with the actual network Nonindicted 13, intended to recruit mobile competition groups to support Defendant 6 by using the private organization or similar institution called “△△△dong Emergency Countermeasures Promotion Committee”, which could not be sufficiently anticipated to use the organization of Defendant 6 as above.

In addition, the purport of Defendant 6’s encouraging the Si/Gu council members to recruit a competition group is that Defendant 6 was aware that it was an election immediately, and that Defendant 6’s public relations and name cards were divided in the course of recruitment, and that Defendant 6 recruited a mobile competition group after the recruitment process, it cannot be interpreted to the effect that Defendant 6 recruited a person who supports himself/herself as a mobile competition group.

⑤ At the office of Defendant 6, mobile education was provided to each of the instant “PS Committee” books, etc., and employees, etc. at the time of education, etc. issued Defendant 6’s name cards to the same books, etc., and promotion was made. In this case, Defendant 6 participated at the end of education and directly provided personnel management.

6) Defendant 6 attended and provided personnel at a private meeting or promise to carry out an election campaign, and a large number of private meetings and commitments are prepared by each member of the "Racing Countermeasures Committee".

7) Defendant 6 had several days prior to Nonindicted 3 candidates in the public opinion poll conducted on January 4, 2012. However, according to the public opinion poll conducted on January 20, 2012, it is anticipated that Nonindicted 13 would have led to the occurrence of crisis by following a small number of candidates for Nonindicted 3 candidates. Nonindicted 13 supported this circumstance by stating that “The local committee’s public opinion survey conducted on the public opinion of the members of the local committee (Si/Gu Council, Gu Council)” on January 19, 2012, as of January 19, 2012, “the local committee’s regional meeting (Si/Gu Council, Gu Council members)” - 1.5% - Jeonnam - Jeonnam - one point - one point 3% - countermeasures ? 2/2000 2/200 - 3/20 / 3/20 /

In this situation, it is necessary to assist Defendant 6, a three-way head of the Gu, Defendant 3’s carbon organization. The time when the series of crimes in this case was committed is after January 20, 2012, and most of the persons who actually play a leading role in soliciting mobile light groups are classified as Defendant 3 organizations.

④ According to the recording of a telephone between Defendant 2 and Defendant 6, Defendant 6 does not take any kind of liability even though Defendant 2 stated that “I am dys, am, end our event, and am dys, am dys, am dys, am dys, and am dys, and am dys in China, even if we go to China.” If Defendant 6 oppose Defendant 6’s use of Defendant 3’s organization, such as Defendant 6 and Defendant 4’s statement, and at all times alert Defendant 6, Defendant 6 should have taken the responsibility. In addition, the above contents of the telephone are evidence that Defendant 3 was involved in the solicitation of a mobile light. Such recognition does not change because Defendant 2’s speech was exaggerated.

9) Defendant 6 asserts that it was not possible to instruct any unlawful act since it should have been tried separately after the report of the case at issue. However, in the above-mentioned preliminary situation, Defendant 6’s most adjacent parts of Defendant 6 arbitrarily carried out an illegal election campaign and spread money and valuables without Defendant 6’s consent is more and more contrary to the empirical rule.

C. Sub-committee

As acknowledged above, Defendant 2 filed a report on the recruitment of the national competition group by mobilization of Defendant 3’s organization to Defendant 6 in any form, and made a statement at the prosecutor’s office and court to the effect that Defendant 6 had made a positive answer to this issue, Defendant 6 also urged Defendant 2 or Si/Gun council members to recruit a mobile competition group several times, Defendant 4 and 5, the most surrounding part of Defendant 6, participated in the case, Defendant 6’s office, not the party office, and Defendant 6 provided a mobile competition education for the number of private organizations, and Defendant 6 was directly engaged in personnel affairs at Defendant 6’s office, not the party office office, in support of such Defendant 2’s statement, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 6 conspired with Defendant 3, 2, 11, and 4 in succession with Defendant 3, 2, and 4 regarding criminal facts as indicated in the judgment of Defendant 6.

3. Determination on other arguments

As seen earlier I.2. Criminal facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the holding carry all the characteristics of the competition campaign and the election campaign, and attracting persons supporting Defendant 6 to a mobile light-line competition beyond the mere preparation of light-line competition. Thus, Defendant 6 and his defense counsel’s assertion are not accepted.

V. Defendant 2

1. Summary of the assertion

In relation to Paragraph 3 of the ruling, no person is aware of how much the money has been distributed, and is not a contributor.

2. Determination

On the other hand, Defendant 2 was willing to act for the competition and election campaign of Defendant 6 by mobilization of organization on the part of Defendant 4, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 and providing money to Defendant 6. Accordingly, as long as Defendant 4 actually paid money to Defendant 1 and delivered it to Defendant 1, it cannot be said that Defendant 2 was aware of the specific amount of the money to which he was given, or to whom he was given. In addition, Defendant 2 is not the contributor. However, as long as Defendant 4 had a relation of co-principal relationship with Defendant 4 who actually made a contribution, this argument is without merit.

VI. Defendant 5

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 5 cannot be deemed as a contribution person by simply delivering money or goods, and Defendant 5 did not provide money or goods related to election campaign since it is related to the intra-party competition.

2. Determination

Defendant 5, at the prosecutor’s office and court, may accurately know that the money was under the pretext of Defendant 4 at the time of receiving the money from Defendant 4, but thought that it was the money related to Defendant 6’s election, and stated that Defendant 1 was paid according to Defendant 4’s order. If so, even if Defendant 5 did not participate in the advance conspiracy of the crime, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 5 conspired with Defendant 4 in a successive and implicit manner at the time of receiving the money. Therefore, insofar as Defendant 2, 3, and 4, it is recognized as a co-principal of the crime, such as contribution, etc.

In addition, there is no reason to argue that Defendant 5 did not offer in connection with the election because he was aware that he was money and valuables related to the election.

Finally, since the money of this case is recognized not only in the intraparty competition campaign but also in relation to the election campaign, there is no reason to argue that it is only money related to the intraparty competition.

[Attachment 5] of the Judgment of Defendant 3

Defendant 3 and his defense counsel acknowledged facts, but asserted that they were found to correspond to the encouragement level for their representatives.

On the other hand, according to the provisions of Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act, the head of a local government is prohibited from making a contribution at all times, and the act of offering money and valuables, such as the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, does not constitute exceptional cases stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 112(2) of the Public Official Election Act. In addition, even if the defendant is the head of a three-party local government, it cannot be deemed that there is no possibility that the defendant may participate in an election, other than the election of the head of a local government. Therefore, it is not a certain consideration as alleged by the defendant 3 and his defense counsel, and it

[Defendant 2] Paragraph 6 of the Judgment

Defendant 2 and his defense counsel asserted that the facts in relation to the ruling No. 6 are recognized, but they are courtesy acts.

On the other hand, this statement constitutes an election campaign in which Defendant 2 attended on behalf of Defendant 6, and even according to Defendant 2’s statement, Defendant 2 was aware that Defendant 6’s speech was made for Defendant 6’s election. Thus, it constitutes an active and planned act that is necessary for the candidate’s election or special election or defeat and all favorable acts that are deemed necessary for the candidate’s election or defeat and that the purpose of promoting the election or defeat is objectively recognized. Thus, the above statement is without merit.

[The parts related to paragraphs 9 and 10 at the market]

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants did not make a prior promise, and Defendant 3 did not make the same speech as the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (9) of the judgment, and Defendant 6 did not make the same speech as the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (10) of the judgment, and even if the above remarks were made, it is merely a formal act.

2. Whether there was a prior promise between the Defendants

A. The evidence duly examined by this court reveals the following facts.

① According to the witness Nonindicted 17, a witness Nonindicted 17, who was the KBS reporter coverage and reported the instant case, he/she was preserved as KBS around January 19, 2012 and the content of the phone was decided to be present at the meeting of the head of Dong around 18:30 on January 19, 2012, which corresponds to the criminal facts stated in the judgment.

② From January 19, 2012, Nonindicted 18, who is Defendant 3’s execution expense, was continuously informed of Defendant 6’s location from around 18:38, 2012 with Nonindicted 15, who performed Defendant 6. In addition, Nonindicted 18 sent the word “the highest notice of terms and conditions has been contacted for 20 minutes later,” and “Slung Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man Man,” on a similar point with Defendant 3 Nonindicted 19, who is the chief secretary.

③ The book of reservation at the place of residence also states that “6:30:2 x 16 (4) attendance at the head of the Dong/Dong, 2 x 3 x 16 (4)” in line with the number of persons, including Defendant 6, Nonindicted 15, who carried out the book, and the number of other promoters.”

④ According to Defendant 6’s statement, when he attends a meeting for an election campaign permitted by the law of the country, only personnel is and was short time. However, at the time of the instant crime, Defendant 6 continued to attend a meeting from 18:50 to 21:00 during which the meeting was closed from 18:50 to 21.00.

⑤ Nonindicted 20, the attending the meeting of the head of the Dong, stated that Defendant 6 did not memory himself before attending the meeting, but Defendant 6 was able to bring him.

B. In full view of the above facts, it shall be deemed that Defendant 6 had a prior promise to attend the commercial conference held by Defendant 3 and Defendant 6 at the head of Dong-gu Dong-gu Dong-gu, Gwangju. The fact that Defendant 6 had a different promise at the meeting of the head of Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Gwangju, about 20:00 on the same day does not interfere with such recognition.

3. Whether Defendant 3 publicizes his achievements;

According to the witness’s legal statement, Nonindicted 15’s prosecutorial statement, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, and Nonindicted 23’s written statement in each of the police and prosecutor’s interrogation protocol, it is recognized that Defendant 3 made the same statement as the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment. Moreover, the remaining participants’ statement is a statement to the effect that Defendant 3 did not specifically make such a statement, rather than the purport that Defendant 3 did not make such a statement, it does not interfere with the recognition of the above facts.

In addition, the meaning of "business" under Article 86 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act is reasonable to interpret it as all social acts that can be positive evaluation data in elections (Supreme Court Decision 97Do320 delivered on April 25, 1997). All statements such as criminal facts in the judgment of Defendant 3 are positive evaluation data about Defendant 6 in the election of National Assembly members. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

4. Whether Defendant 6 was an advance election campaign

According to the witness Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 21, and Nonindicted 22, the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 15, the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, and Nonindicted 29, and the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol, each of the statements made by the police officers and the prosecutor’s office may be acknowledged as having made the statement as indicated in the facts constituting the offense indicated in the judgment of Defendant 6. Most of the heads of the Dong’s statements made that some of the statements were made are consistent with the fact that Defendant 6 made a transfer of the place where the allegation was asserted. Moreover, the remaining participants’ statement does not interfere with the aforementioned recognition by stating that it would not mean that Defendant 6 did not go against the purport that Defendant 6 did not make such statements.

An election campaign refers to any act that is necessary or favorable for the election, votes, or defeat of a specific candidate and that can be objectively recognized with the objective of promoting an election or defeat. Specifically, in determining whether a certain act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined not only on the pretext of the act, but also on the pretext of the act, such as the time, place, method, etc. of the act, and whether it is an act accompanying the purpose of promoting the election or defeat of a specific candidate (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9403 Decided March 30, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, Defendant 6 attended a meeting of the head of Dong with a large influence in the local community at the time when the election was left for three months and one-month period, and the primary election is to help the candidate in connection with the election, and the head of Dong, who is an illegal public official, must explain about his parliamentary activities of the 18th National Assembly members, explain himself about his parliamentary activities of the 18th National Assembly members, have been extremely open for the Dong Gu, and the head of Dong wishes to be elected again, and the answer to the 18th National Assembly member to the 19th National Assembly member by the head of Dong to the 19th National Assembly member is beyond the mere formal act to the effect that the head of Dong simply asked for the me.

As a member of the above private organization organized by the deceased non-indicted 1, Non-indicted 9, who was detained in relation to the illegal election campaign of this case, was written as follows at the end of the suspect interrogation protocol.

There are many thoughts that I want to retire from being promoted too far as this day, and I want to do so according to the order such as robots. If the world is less than this, I would like to live. I would like to think that I would like to see how we are true in the situation while we live in the world with a false life. I would like to see how we live in the world with a false life, even though I want to do so. I would like to not participate in these group meetings twice again, and to live in the Dong-gu. In this case, I would like to do so. I would like to say that I would like to see how we live in the world with a true appearance."

The deceased Non-Party 1, who recommended the recruitment of mobile lines, died in the field of control, was arrested by many people, such as the ordinary family register, who worked as a four-way head of the Tong, and led to the court. Defendant 4 and 5, who was the nearest side, such as Defendant 6’s assistant officer, was arrested, but was arrested. And Defendant 6 was elected by force.

However, the election was carried out in the process of mobilization of the general organization of the three-party head of the active service, including the head of the Tong Tong, and spreading money and valuables to the books.The election to be a festival of beautiful democracy is the fall into the fluencing of ice, snow, and fluencing with money. This is the conclusion that the election to be a festival of beautiful democracy does not comply with the heavy responsibility. This is the conclusion that even if it was carried out by any political party in any area, it cannot be changed.

Although Defendants asserts that the adverse effects of the mobile light system that was rapidly introduced are expected to result, these circumstances are only a matter to be resolved within the political sphere to which the Defendants belong, and it cannot be said that the courts should take into account the election law enacted by the legislative body.

Although Defendants have argued to the effect that they should be treated differently from the election crimes in the main line because they were punished in the course of the intra-party competition, they constitute the crime of this case by openly expressing that the Defendants voluntarily during the process of preparation for the intra-party competition, “the election is immediately elected,” and as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the instant crime concurrently takes the character of the election campaign at the same time as the competition campaign, it cannot be viewed as a situation that can be considered.

The following points were taken into account in determining punishment by Defendant. In light of the nature of organized crimes, subordinate officers are in charge of specific criminal acts and their superior officers are involved in criminal acts by using instructions or implieds, etc. without directly disclosing the surface. However, benefits arising from criminal acts are ultimately attributed to superior officers, and the acts of subordinate officers can only be conducted by using the superior’s authority and power. Accordingly, even if they are not in charge of actual acts, they cannot be punished more narrowly than those of subordinates who performed the act.

First, Defendant 6 and Defendant 3 may not be held liable for the most severe liability as the top-class personnel of the organization used for the instant crime. However, the instant crime is divided into two parts of illegal election campaigns and spraying money using the organization. Defendant 4, who prepared and delivered money and valuables by Defendant 6’s assistant officer, did not disclose all of the crime, and Defendant 6 did not prosecute only for illegal election campaigns using the organization, and did not prosecute the portion on which money and valuables were distributed. As a result, Defendant 6 was indicted only for illegal election campaigns using the organization and did not prosecute the portion on which money and valuables were distributed. Accordingly, the court cannot consider the portion on which money and valuables were distributed as a matter of course in determining punishment. Defendant 3 cannot be exempt from the criminal liability in relation to spraying money and valuables. However, considering that Defendant 3’s entire organization of the mother of the entire crime, Defendant 3’s portion on the organization of Defendant 3 and Defendant 6’s portion on the punishment cannot be considered as having been directly responsible for the portion on which money were distributed.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 were responsible for their involvement in both crimes, but all of their parts of the crimes were led to confessions and mistakes, and in the absence of their statements by these two persons, they cannot be considered that the entire crimes were not revealed. Therefore, the punishment was partially reduced.

On the contrary, even though Defendant 4 is not in the position of ultimately responsible for all crimes, with respect to the portion of spraying money and valuables, which is the most severe statutory penalty among the total crimes, Defendant 4 does not disclose whether to attract money and valuables by denying all of the crimes, despite refusal to make a statement after being arrested, or despite the clear statement of accomplices, by denying all of the crimes. Thus, the punishment as the final responsible person with respect to spraying money and valuables cannot be imposed.

Defendant 5 is responsible for delivering money and valuables to be distributed in the middle, but since he did not participate in any other crime, Defendant 5 is subject to the most minor punishment among the Defendants.

1. Summary of the facts charged

No person shall make contributions on behalf of a candidate in connection with an election, and no person shall offer, promise, induce, mediate, request or receive money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign, regardless of the pretext thereof, such as allowances, actual expenses, other compensation for volunteers, etc.

At around 10:00 on January 16, 2012, Defendant 3 issued to the head of the Dong-dong Dong-dong Dong-gu Dong-gu, Gwangju, that “The head of Dong-gu Voluntary Women’s Association, including Nonindicted 2, and the head of Dong-gu, the head of Dong-gu Green Women’s Association,” and that “the head of Dong-gu, the head of Dong-gu, including Nonindicted 2, had been a large number of students,” and that the head of Dong-gu, 14,0

As a result, Defendant 3 provided a contribution act for Defendant 6 candidate in relation to the election, and provided money in relation to the election campaign.

2. Determination

The statement of each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 3, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 30 is the same as that of Defendant 3 to provide merchandise coupons in return for Defendant 6's election campaign, or it is merely an abstract charge, and it is insufficient to recognize it. There is no evidence to prove otherwise that Defendant 3 made a contribution on behalf of Defendant 6 or provided money or valuables in connection with Defendant 6's election campaign.

Therefore, the facts charged in each part of the charges must be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they fall under a case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a contribution act under paragraph (5) of the same Article

Judges Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Support for Kim Tae-tae

Note 1) For reference, although this case is not applicable, even if it is based on the sentencing guidelines on election crimes to be applied after the final decision was made on August 2012 and scheduled to be applied, this case’s crime is a planned and organized crime, and is committed by taking advantage of social status or influence, and is an inevitable case, and the sentence to be declared by this court is within the scope of the recommended sentence.