[1] A case where an assistant in accounting of a candidate for an election for public office, etc. is required to obtain a written delegation from a person in charge of accounting concerning disbursement of political funds pursuant to the proviso of Article 3

[2] The case holding that the act of disbursement of political funds does not constitute a violation of Article 36 (1) of the Political Funds Act, in case where a candidate, who was selected in the election of a member of the local council, concurrently engages in an act of direct disbursement in the election campaign while holding the position of accountant in charge of the local council, and provided the assistant with documentary evidence and

[1] Where an assistant in charge of accounting of a candidate in an election for public office, etc. is required to be entrusted by a person in charge of accounting in writing with respect to the disbursement of political funds pursuant to the proviso to Article 36(1) of the Political Funds Act refers to a case where an assistant in charge of accounting gives a certain amount of discretion or decision-making right to the disbursement of political funds to an assistant in charge of accounting. Unlike this, the assistant in charge of accounting is merely an act of de facto performing the disbursement of political funds

[2] The case holding that, in case where a candidate, who was selected in the election of a member of a local council, concurrently engages in an election campaign while holding the position of an accountant in charge and provided an assistant with documentary evidence, such as receipts, etc., to transfer money from the account reported to the election commission by account transfer to the election commission through Internet banking, the above political funds disbursement is merely merely based on the instructions of an accountant in charge, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of Article 36 (1) of the Political Funds Act since the assistant merely follows

[1] Articles 36(1) and 47(1)8 of the Political Funds Act, Article 35(3) of the Rules on the Management of Political Funds / [2] Articles 36(1) and 47(1)8 of the Political Funds Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2007No343 Decided July 27, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 36 (1) of the Political Funds Act provides that "The revenue and expenditure of political funds of a candidate and a preliminary candidate for an election for public office may be made only by the person in charge of accounting: Provided, That this shall not apply where an assistant in charge of accounting who is entrusted with the accounting affairs in writing by setting the purpose and scope of expenditure to the extent that an assistant in charge of accounting can know the details of expenditure in general." The above provision appears to be the purpose of promoting the sound development of democratic politics by disclosing the revenue and expenditure of political funds to the public and preventing related malpractice. In light of the language and text of the proviso of the above provision and Article 35 (3) of the Political Funds Act, where an assistant in charge of accounting has to pay political funds delegated by the person in charge of accounting, he/she shall submit receipts and other documentary evidence to the person in charge of accounting pursuant to the provisions of Article 39 of the Political Funds Act, and where an assistant in charge of accounting has to obtain written delegation from the assistant in accordance with the proviso to Article 36 (1) of the Political Funds Act, it shall be deemed that the assistant in charge is merely a written instruction of the fund.

In full view of the adopted evidence, Defendant 2 registered as a candidate for the election of a member of the Won-si Council, which was implemented on May 31, 2006 and asked Defendant 1 to help him/her commit an Internet banking act while conducting an election campaign. Defendant 1, who received the above request, did not know of the Internet banking method, and Defendant 2, from April 4, 2006 to May 18, 2006, did not incur an act of incurring expenditure such as purchase and sale, lease, etc., and caused receipts and other documentary evidence to the election office, the lower court determined that Defendant 2’s act of remitting money recorded in the above documentary evidence from the deposit account of Defendant 2, which was reported to the competent election commission as a deposit account for revenues and expenditures of political funds by using the computer of Defendant 2, who was in the above election office, was justifiable, and that Defendant 1’s act of maintaining the legal principles as to the above facts charged by Defendant 1’s accountant in charge, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)