Defendant 1 and eight others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Kim Sang-young (prosecution, public trial)

Law Firm Sejong & 2 others

Daegu District Court Decision 2012Gohap142 Decided October 31, 2012

1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall be reversed.

2. Defendants 3 and 4 shall be punished by respective fines of KRW 2,00,00, KRW 5,000, and KRW 1,50,000, KRW 7, and KRW 8 shall be punished by respective fines of KRW 1,00,00, KRW 9 shall be punished by respective fines of KRW 80,000, and KRW 9 shall be punished by fines of KRW 1,50,00.

3. In the event that Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 did not pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in each of the labor union for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

4. 8,506,00 won from Defendant 3; 8,296,00 won from Defendant 4; 5,963,00 won from Defendant 5; 3,523,00 won from Defendant 6; 2,452,00 won from Defendant 8; 1,434,00 won from Defendant 8; and 1,248,000 won from Defendant 9 shall be collected respectively.

5. To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines against Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

6. All of the appeals filed by Defendants 1 and 2 and the prosecutor's appeals filed against Defendants 1 and 2 are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1, 2

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) As to the advance election campaign

As stated in the facts of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, the above Defendants conducted an arbitrary telephone conversation with telephone campaign personnel (hereinafter “instant public opinion poll”). However, since the Defendants did not want to become a candidate until December 11, 201 and December 13, 201, when Non-Indicted 3 declared non-Indicted 1’s election of National Assembly members 19, Defendant 1 did not want to engage in an election campaign for Defendant 1’s election, and the public opinion poll of this case until the above time was conducted by Defendant 1, the above Defendants did not have any necessity or intention to engage in an election campaign for Defendant 1’s election, and the public opinion poll of this case was merely conducted with mere mere mere guidance about Defendant 1, and it was not conducted within the public opinion poll of this case, which was prohibited by the public opinion poll of this case. ② The Defendants’ public opinion poll of this case was not conducted within 15,000 won after the registration date of preliminary candidates under Article 2 of the Public Official Election Act.

B) On the violation of prohibition of establishment of a similar agency

Until December 13, 2011, Defendant 1 registered a preliminary candidate, Defendant 1 was not in the position of a candidate, and the present public opinion poll act at the time is merely a personal guidance investigation that constitutes “preparation for election campaign and preparation for election campaign” rather than “election campaign” under the premise that Defendant 1 would leave the candidate for the 19th National Assembly election. Thus, Defendant 1’s act of conducting the public opinion poll of this case using the office of ○○○○○○○○ Forum as stated in the facts constituting a crime of the lower judgment does not constitute an act of establishing a similar institution prohibited under Articles 255(1)13 and 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act.

C) As to the provision of money and valuables to telephone promotion personnel related to election campaigns

As alleged above, until December 13, 201, Defendant 1 registered as a preliminary candidate, Defendant 1 did not have the status of a person intending to become a candidate, and the pertinent public opinion poll act at the time was also a mere preparation of candidate and election campaign rather than an election campaign. As stated in Article 1-b of the Criminal Act, offering money and valuables to 10 persons, such as Defendant 3, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the court below, does not constitute an act of offering money and valuables related to election campaign prohibited under Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence (Defendant 1: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of imprisonment, 8 months of suspended sentence and 2 years of suspended sentence) sentenced by the court below against the above Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The above Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants of telephone publicity”) knew only that they conducted a simple personal guidance investigation with Defendant 1 according to Defendant 2’s instruction, and did not know the fact that the instant public opinion poll constitutes an election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act, and did not have any intention to affect the purpose of the election campaign or the election. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of the judgment that found the Defendants guilty on the fact that the said Defendants of the instant public opinion poll constituted an election campaign prohibited under the Public Official Election Act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

As to the above Defendants, each sentence (Defendant 3: KRW 4 million; KRW 8506,00; KRW 4 million; KRW 8,296,00; KRW 4 million; KRW 8,296,00; and KRW 5,963,00; KRW 3 million; KRW 3 million; KRW 3,523,00; KRW 2 million; KRW 2 million; KRW 2 million; KRW 4,452,00; and KRW 8: KRW 2 million; KRW 1,434,00; and KRW 9: KRW 1 million; KRW 1,000; KRW 1,248,000; and KRW 2 million.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) Legal principles

A) As to the offering and acceptance of money and valuables 18.5 million won in connection with the election campaign between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Defendant 2 received 18.5 million won per year from Nonindicted 2, the general secretary of the ○○○○○○○○ Forum, and even if Defendant 1 had given a certain degree of work related to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Defendant 1 was for election campaign preparation, and actually, Defendant 2 performed duties such as managing and conducting telephone campaign material according to Defendant 1’s instructions, conducting public opinion pollss, reporting on the results of public opinion polls, and paying allowances to telephone campaign material. Defendant 2 did not perform the above duties related to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the provision of money and valuables provided to Defendant 15.

B) As to the publication of false facts

From October 2006 to August 2007, Defendant 1 organized Nonindicted 1’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, although Defendant 1 took the post of Nonindicted 1’s △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ or △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, on February 25, 201, the name was changed to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on January 27, 2012. Although there was no fact that Nonindicted 1 was appointed as the head of the △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the statement of Nonindicted 1’s name as the head of the △○○○○○○○○○○.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant 1 and 2 is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Defendant 1, 2

1) As to the prior election campaign

A) The judgment of the court below

Defendant 1 and 2 also asserted in the lower court’s reasoning of appeal that “The above 1-A, 1-A, and (a)” and “the part concerning the assertion of Defendant 1, 2, and their defense counsel” (hereinafter “original conviction part”), based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, Defendant 1 and 2 acknowledged the same facts as “the part concerning judgment of conviction” as stated in the “3-A, 2-A, and 6-B,” which are recognized by the above evidence, and in particular, Defendant 1’s election campaign campaign experience at 17th National Assembly members, and the head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which, by means of telephone call call, directly led the above gathering, and in light of the background and purpose of executing the instant public opinion poll, method of investigation, period of investigation, and result of public opinion poll, etc., each of Defendant 1’s election campaign.

B) Relevant legal principles

① The term “election campaign” under Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act means all acts that are favorable and necessary for or favorable to the success or defeat in an election for public office under Article 2 of the same Act and that can be objectively recognized by the intention of promoting the success or defeat in the election. Thus, the mere act of preparing an election campaign or ordinary political party activities corresponding to the internal and procedural preparation for the future election campaign does not constitute an election campaign. However, in determining whether a certain act constitutes an election campaign, it shall be determined whether the act is an act accompanying the will of a specific candidate or defeat in the election (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5174, Oct. 15, 2004; 2005Do1165, Jun. 23, 2005; 2007Do586, Mar. 28, 2007).

(2) When a public opinion poll is deemed inappropriate in light of its timing, circumstances, scale, and the form, contents, etc. of questions, it constitutes an advance election campaign in the case of a public opinion poll corresponding to enhancing the authorization for a specific person and inducing its support by emphasizing its advantages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do856, Jun. 9, 1998; 96Do135, Apr. 12, 1996).

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's finding of facts and circumstances as seen in the above paragraph (a) and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant 1 and 2, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. Thus, this part of the appeal by the above defendants is without merit.

① 피고인 1, 2는, 공소외 3 전 국회의원이 제19대 국회의원 선거에 불출마 선언을 한 2011. 12. 11. 이전까지는 피고인 1이 후보자가 되고자 하는 자의 지위에 있지 않았기 때문에 위 시기까지 한 이 사건 여론조사 행위는 사전선거운동에 해당하지 않는다는 취지로 주장하나, 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 1은 2011. 2.경 서울 강서구 염창동에 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실에서 ‘◎◎◎◎◎리서치’라는 이름으로 여론조사를 처음 시작할 무렵부터 적어도 공직선거법에서 규정하는 ‘후보자가 되고자 하는 자’에 해당한다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 설사 그렇지 않다고 하여도, 공직선거법 제254조 제2항 에서 “선거운동기간 전에 이 법에 규정된 방법을 제외하고 선전시설물·용구 또는 각종 인쇄물, 방송·신문·뉴스통신·잡지, 그 밖의 간행물, 정견발표회·좌담회·토론회·향우회·동창회·반상회, 그 밖의 집회, 정보통신, 선거운동기구나 사조직의 설치, 호별방문, 그 밖의 방법으로 선거운동을 한 자”라고 규정하여 범행의 주체에 대한 제한이 없으므로, 위 2011. 12. 13. 이전까지의 이 사건 여론조사가 그 시기와 배경, 목적, 조사의 방법, 설문내용, 조사기간, 여론조사결과의 처리 과정 등에 비추어 제19대 국회의원 포항남·울릉도 선거구에서 피고인 1을 당선되게 하기 위한 능동적·계획적인 행위로서 선거운동에 해당하는 이상, 당시 피고인 1이 후보자가 되고자 하는 자의 지위에 있지 않았다고 하여 달리 볼 바 아니다.

② Defendant 1’s defense counsel appears to have been engaged in the investigation of Nonindicted Party 1’s political history as a candidate for △△△△△△’s new political history that was seized by the prosecution (the investigation record No. 383, 494, 1781, 1782, 1783 pages) after January 22, 2012, or after February 3, 2012, the change of the name of △△△△△△△△. As such, Defendant 1’s defense counsel cannot be recognized as having been engaged in the investigation of Defendant 1 at the time of the instant public opinion poll until the said time, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 and 2 continued to have been engaged in the investigation of Nonindicted Party 1’s political history as a candidate for △△△△△△△△△△△’s new political history at the time of the investigation of Nonindicted Party 1’s political history at the time of 20th of March 6, 2011.

③ Defendant 2 and the Defendants, who are the causes of the instant public opinion poll, made an investigation at the lower court to the effect that: (a) Defendant 1’s personal guidance was actively conducted at the time of the instant public opinion poll; (b) Defendant 2, telephone public relations materials; (c) Defendant 5, Nonindicted 6, and Co-Defendant 10’s statements made at each prosecutor’s office; and (d) the details of accusation made by the telephone call of the instant public opinion poll to the election commission. In full view of the contents of the questionnaire acknowledged by the lower court; (b) from February 2, 2011 to June 201, Defendant 1, who was the director general of the former KBS bureau, was aware of the name and career of Defendant 1; (b) Defendant 1 was investigated to enhance his personal guidance by informing Defendant 1 of the name and career; and (c) Defendant 1 was actively promoted from July 2011 to December 12, 2011 to Defendant 13.

④ According to recent trends in election, given that public opinion poll has a significant weight and influence on public opinion poll, and that public opinion poll’s personal guidance for specific persons is based on a sense of self-esteem and support, even though there was no content of public opinion polling Defendant 1 in detail, it can be sufficiently inferred that Defendant 1’s annual notice was continuously employed regardless of Defendant 1’s activities, and that Defendant 1’s intention to use this case’s public opinion poll against the residents living in a specific region, who actually participated in the election of National Assembly members, was intended to improve the awareness about Defendant 1 and to use this case’s public opinion poll favorable to election.

Shedly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal are examined as follows: (a) Defendant 1’s competition campaign to obtain a candidate candidate for the National Assembly member within △△△△ Party was conducted; and (b) Defendant 1’s prior election campaign

㈎ ‘선거운동’은 공직선거에서의 당선 또는 낙선을 위한 행위이고, ‘경선운동’은 공직선거에 출마할 정당 추천 후보자를 선출하기 위한 당내 경선에서의 당선 또는 낙선을 위한 행위라고 할 것인데, 공직선거법은 선거운동에 관하여는 제7장에 규정하고 정당의 후보자 추천을 위한 당내경선에 관하여는 제6장의2에서 규정하며, 그에 관련한 처벌규정도 공직선거에 관하여는 같은 법 제230조 제1항 등에, 당내경선에 관하여는 같은 법 230조 제7항 등에 각 별도로 규정하고 있으므로, 선거운동과 경선운동의 제한을 위반한 경우 그 처벌 규정을 엄격하게 구별하여 적용하여야 한다.

㈏ 다만 앞에서 본 바와 같이, 행위의 명목뿐만 아니라 그 행위의 태양, 즉 그 행위가 행하여지는 시기·장소·방법 등을 종합적으로 관찰하여 그것이 특정후보자의 당선 또는 낙선을 도모하는 목적의지를 수반하는 행위, 즉 특정후보자의 당선 내지 득표나 낙선을 위하여 필요하고도 유리한 모든 행위로서 당선 또는 낙선을 도모한다는 목적의사가 객관적으로 인정될 수 있는 능동적·계획적인 행위에 해당하는 경우에는 선거운동에 해당한다고 보아야 하므로, 당내 경선에서의 당선 또는 낙선을 위한 행위라는 구실로 실질적으로는 공직선거에서의 당선 또는 낙선을 위한 행위를 하는 것으로 평가할 수 있는 경우에는 선거운동으로 볼 수 있다( 대법원 2003. 7. 8. 선고 2003도305 판결 , 대법원 2005. 1. 13. 선고 2004도7549 판결 , 2005. 10. 14. 선고 2005도301 판결 , 대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2011도17437 판결 등 참조).

㈐ 원심과 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건 여론조사 당시 당원과 비당원임을 구별하지 아니하고 포항남·울릉 선거구민들을 상대로 무차별적으로 전화하여 피고인 1의 경력 등에 대하여 홍보한 점, ② 이 사건 여론조사는 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 △△△당의 후보자 공천을 위한 경선 과정에서 진행된 것이 아니라 공천 기간보다 훨씬 이전부터 진행되었던 점, ③ 이 사건 여론조사 당시 사용된 질문지의 기재 내용 중에 ◁◁◁당의 공천자 또는 후보자로서 적임자가 누구인지에 관한 질문 등 경선과 관련된 내용이 있기는 하나, 전체적으로 보아 당내경선을 의미하거나 △△△당 당원들을 상대로 지지를 구하는 등의 경선운동으로 볼 수는 없고, 피고인 1의 존재를 알리고 피고인 1의 경력을 소개, 홍보하는 것이 주된 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 이 사건 여론조사가 피고인 1의 인지도와 지지도를 높여 피고인 1이 △△△당 후보자로 공천을 받을 수 있도록 하기 위한 것이었다고 하더라도 포항남·울릉선거구의 특성상 △△△당 공천을 받으면 당선이 유력하므로, 공천을 받기 위한 운동이 곧 당선을 목적으로 하는 능동적·계획적 행위에 해당한다고 보아야 하는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 여론조사 행위는 피고인 1이 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 포항남·울릉선거구의 △△△당 후보자로 공천을 받기 위한 경선운동에 해당한다기보다는 피고인 1이 국회의원 선거 후보자로 출마할 계획이 있는 포항남·울릉선거구의 선거구민들에게 피고인 1의 인지도와 지지도를 높여 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 피고인 1을 당선되게 할 목적으로 행한 능동적·계획적 행위라고 보는 것이 타당하다.

㈑ 따라서 피고인 1, 2의 이 부분 항소이유[위 제1의 가, 1), 가)항③부분] 주장도 받아들일 수 없다.

2) As to the violation of the prohibition of establishment of a similar institution

A) The judgment of the court below

원심은 ‘원심 유죄판단 부분 제3의 가항’에서 판단한 내용 및 그 판시 증거들에 의하여 인정되는, ① 피고인 1, 2가 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실로 사용되던 염창동 사무실과 (건물명 1 및 호수 생략)에 전화기 6대 등을 설치하고, 전화홍보원을 고용하는 등 인적·물적 시설을 갖추고, 전화홍보원으로 하여금 이 사건 여론조사를 하도록 한 점, ② 피고인 1은 2011. 2.경 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실을 얻어 ◎◎◎◎◎리서치라는 이름으로 이 사건 여론조사를 처음 시작할 무렵부터 공직선거법 제89조 제1항 의 ‘후보자가 되고자 하는 자’에 해당한다고 할 것인 점, ③ 피고인 1, 2는 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실을 ○○○○○○포럼의 업무와 무관하게 사용한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 1, 2는 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 후보자가 되고자 하는 피고인 1을 위하여 선거운동을 할 목적으로 기존의 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실 등을 공직선거법상 선거사무소 또는 선거연락소 유사기관으로 이용하였다고 판단하였다.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

(1) As seen in paragraph (a) above, the above judgment of the court below is just in light of the legal principles as seen below, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal by Defendants 1 and 2, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

① 피고인 1의 변호인이 주장하는 바와 같이, 경북일보 2011. 1. 1.자 기사, 매일신문 2011. 10. 11.자 기사, 경북도민일보 2011. 10. 28.자 기사, 영남일보 2011. 11. 4.자 기사, 경북매일 2011. 11. 9.자 기사 등에서는 당시 제19대 국회의원 선거 포항남·울릉선거구에서, 공소외 3이 출마할 경우 다른 후보자들이 출마하여도 당선이 어려운 상황으로 예상되어 공소외 3의 출마 여부가 최대의 관심사이었고, 공소외 3이 불출마할 경우 유력한 후보자를 거론하였는데 거기에는 피고인 1이 들어있지 않았던 점, 피고인 1은 ▷▷초등학교 동문회 및 ♤♤중학교 동문회에서 공소외 3이 출마할 것이 확실하므로 출마할 의사가 없다고 이야기한 점, 공소외 3은 2011. 11. 초경까지 오천읍 포은문화축제 등 크고 작은 행사에 열심히 다니는 등 활발하게 제19대 국회의원 선거 준비를 하고 있었던 점, ○○○○○○포럼 회원들도 피고인 1이 제19대 국회의원 선거에 출마할 의사가 없었던 것으로 알고 있었다고 하는 점 등이 인정되기는 한다. 그러나 원심이 적절히 판시한 바와 같이, 2010. 10.경부터 지역 언론에서는 공소외 3의 출마 여부에 관하여 찬반 의견이 맞서고 있었고, 피고인 1은 친◈계 핵심 인물로 강력한 공천 낙점자로 평가되었으며(원심판결 제24쪽), 피고인 1은 제17대 국회의원 선거에서 무소속으로 출마한 경력이 있고, 자생단체인 공소외 1 ▽▽□□특보단을 결정하여 단장으로 활동하였으며, 피고인 1의 초등학교, 중학교 동문 모임을 비롯한 포항남·울릉선거구에서는 피고인 1의 출마 여부가 관심사였으며(원심판결 제30쪽), 2011. 2.경 공소외 1 ▽▽□□특보단이 명칭을 ○○○○○○포럼으로 변경하여 모임을 주최하고, 2011. 9.경 및 2011. 10.경에 공소외 1과 국회의원들이 대거 참석한 세미나도 개최한 점에 비추어 보면, 적어도 피고인 1이 2011. 2.경 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실에서 이 사건 여론조사를 시작할 무렵부터 피고인 1에게 선거에 입후보할 의사가 있다는 것이 객관적으로 드러났다고 보인다(출마의사가 없는 사람이 특정지역 유권자들을 상대로 1년이 넘게 다수의 전화홍보원들을 고용하여 수천만 원이 넘는 상당한 비용을 들여가며 지속적으로 홍보성 여론조사를 한다는 것은 상식적으로 납득하기 어렵다).

② As seen earlier, Defendant 1 appears to have been in the position of a candidate at the time of the instant public opinion poll. In light of the time and background of the instant public opinion poll, the subject and purpose of the survey, the methods and details of the survey, the investigation period, and the process of handling the results of the public opinion poll, etc., Defendant 1’s active and planned act to have Defendant 1 elected, which constitutes an election campaign. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the instant public opinion poll is merely an act of preparing for a candidate and an election campaign.

③ 한편 이 부분 공소사실과 관련하여, 검사는 “공직선거법상 선거사무소 또는 선거연락소가 아닌 ‘◎◎◎◎◎리서치’라는 이름으로 유사기관을 설치·운영하였다”는 공소사실로 기소하였지만, 원심은 공소장변경 절차 없이 “기존의 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실 등을 공직선거법상 선거사무소 또는 선거연락소 유사기관으로 이용하였다”는 범죄사실을 유죄로 인정하였다. 이러한 원심의 조치는 동일한 기본적 사실관계를 전제로 법적 평가나 법령의 적용을 검사의 의견과 달리 한 것으로, 피고인들에게 방어권 행사의 지장을 초래하거나 실질적 불이익을 줄 염려가 없고, 피고인들이 당심에서 이 부분을 다투지도 않고 있으므로, 따로 판단하지 않기로 한다.

B. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and 2’s argument in this part of the appeal is without merit.

3) As to the provision of money and valuables to telephone publicity workers related to election campaigns

A) Relevant legal principles

Under Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, anyone regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, etc., shall be punished for the provision of money, goods, or other benefits, or the promise, instruction, solicitation, mediation, demand, or receipt of such offer in connection with the election campaign. If it is allowed to provide benefits in connection with the election campaign, it is difficult to prevent an excessive election campaign, and if benefits are provided to election campaigners, it is ultimately difficult to conduct an election campaign because the election campaign is excessive for the benefit of the election campaigners, and if a person imposes a restriction on the period for the provision of benefits related to the election campaign and imposes a punishment, it is difficult to punish the purchase by avoiding such period, and thus, it is difficult to expect an election campaign and the restriction on the election campaign pursuant to the above provision is not only an institutional harmful effect to ensure the freedom and fairness of the election campaign, but also an election campaign to prevent the provision of benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1574, May 27, 2005).

B) Determination

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, Defendant 1 and 2 provided 32,786,000 won in return for the instant public opinion poll to the telephone campaign personnel who conducted the instant public opinion poll, which is an election campaign to make Defendant 1 elected. As seen earlier, even before December 13, 2011 when Defendant 1 registered as a preliminary candidate, Defendant 1 was a person who wants to become a candidate, and the instant public opinion poll during the said period was intended to make Defendant 1 elected, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 was merely an act of preparing candidates and election campaign, and it was merely an act of preparing candidates and election campaign. Examining these circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the portion of Defendant 1, 2, out of the above KRW 32,786,00,00, should also be deemed as money and valuables provided by this telephone campaign personnel by December 13, 2011.

D. The judgment of the court below to the same effect is just, and there was no error by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendants 1 and 2.

B. Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

1) We first examine the Defendants’ assertion that the instant public opinion poll was unaware of the fact that it constitutes an election campaign.

A) The criminal intent to commit an election campaign constitutes a criminal fact under the Public Official Election Act, which requires strict proof in order to acknowledge it. However, in a case where the defendant denies criminal intent, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intention due to the nature of things in light of the nature of things, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intention should be determined by means of a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on close observation or analysis according to the normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do7739, Jan. 26, 2007; 2007Do7205, Nov. 16, 2007, etc.).

나) 원심과 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정들, 즉 ① 위 피고인들이 이 사건 여론조사 당시 ◎◎◎◎◎리서치에서 여론조사를 하는 것처럼 전화 상대방에게 설명하였다고 하나, 당시 여론조사를 한 사무실은 ○○○○○○포럼의 사무실로서 내부에 공소외 1 사진과 ○○○○○○포럼 현수막이 걸려 있었고, 사무실밖에는 아무런 간판이 없는 등 통상적인 여론조사 기관의 사무실이 아니라는 것을 쉽게 알 수 있었던 점, ② 이 사건 여론조사의 시기, 조사 대상과 그 방법, 설문내용, 여론조사결과의 처리 과정 등에 의하면, 이 사건 여론조사가 피고인 1에 대한 인지도나 지지도를 객관적으로 확인하는 것이 아니라 피고인 1의 경력을 말하는 등으로 피고인 1을 홍보하는 것이었고, 제19대 국회의원 선거에 가까워지면서는 피고인 1에 대한 지지를 호소하기도 한 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 위 피고인들은 2011. 9.경부터 포항남·울릉 선거구민의 휴대전화번호를 알아내면 1건당 1,000원의 별도 수당을 추가로 받았고, 제19대 국회의원 선거가 가까워진 2012. 2. 21.경부터 급여가 시간당 5,000원에서 6,000원으로 인상된 점, ④ 위 피고인들로부터 전화를 받은 지역 주민 중 일부가 불법선거운동을 하는 것으로 판단하고 이 사건 여론조사에 대하여 선거관리위원회에 신고하기도 하였고, 전화홍보원에게 직접 항의하기도 한 점, ⑤ 2011. 2. 12.부터 같은 해 4.경까지 이 사건 여론조사를 한 공소외 5는 경찰에서 당시 피고인 1에게 “이런 걸 해도 되나요”라고 물으니 피고인 1이 “선거관리위원회로부터 문제없다는 답변을 받았다”고 말하였다고 진술한 점, ⑥ 피고인 7도 검찰에서, 피고인 5가 피고인 2에게 “이거 불법 아니냐”고 물었더니 피고인 2가 불법이 아니라고 했다고 말하였다고 진술한 점 등을 종합하여 위 법리에 비추어 보면, 위 피고인들에게 이 사건 여론조사 당시 자신들이 행하는 여론조사가 통용되는 일반적 여론조사와 달리 선거운동에 해당한다는 사실을 알고 있었거나 적어도 미필적 고의는 있었다는 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

2) Next, with regard to the assertion that there was no purpose of influencing the election campaign or the purpose of election at the time of the pertinent public opinion poll, the term “in relation to the election campaign” under Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act means “for the election campaign, with the motive of matters concerning the election campaign,” which is more extensive than “for the election campaign”, and even if there was no purpose of influencing the purpose of the election campaign or the election, the act itself prohibits the provision of benefits related to the election campaign from the necessity of regulating the act that is likely to infringe on the freedom and fairness of the election (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9110 Decided December 23, 201). As seen earlier, insofar as the public opinion poll of this case constitutes the election campaign and it is acknowledged that Defendant 1 and 2 provided the above Defendants with the aggregate amount of KRW 32,786,00 in return for the public opinion poll of this case, the above Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3) Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion of this part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) As to the offering and acceptance of money and valuables 18.5 million won in connection with the election campaign between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

A) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant 2 received KRW 18,50,000 (payment of KRW 1.5 million per month during 12 months and KRW 500,000 per month and October 5, 201) 13 times in total between March 25, 2011 and February 21, 2012 from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Forum Non-Indicted 2, and Defendant 2 conducted the instant public opinion poll while employing and managing the Defendants, etc., according to Defendant 1’s order. Defendant 2 conducted the instant public opinion poll while employing and managing the Defendants, and reported on the payment of allowances to the telephone promotion personnel, results of the public opinion poll, and Defendant 1. Such Defendant 2’s duties were recognized to have become more weighted than those related to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ forum.

나) 그러나 원심과 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음의 사실과 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인 1은 공소외 1 ▽▽□□특보단을 ○○○○○○포럼으로 변경한 후 회원들과 자문교수, 고문들을 합하여 약 60여 명으로 늘어나자, ○○○○○○포럼의 사무실과 그 직원 1명이 필요하다는 제안을 하였고, 2011. 2. 중순경 ○○○○○○포럼 임원회의 및 2011. 2. 25. ○○○○○○포럼 총회에서 전국에 흩어진 회원들의 관리 및 모임의 구심점을 마련하기 위하여 서울에 사무실을 설치하고, 업무를 담당할 직원 1명을 채용하여 월급 150만 원을 지급하기로 결정된 사실, ② 피고인 1은 지인인 공소외 7에게 부탁하여 원심 판시 염창동 소재 ◐◐건설 사무실 중 일부를 ○○○○○○포럼의 사무실로 무상으로 사용하기로 하였고, 2011. 2. 말경 피고인 2를 ○○○○○○포럼의 대리로 채용하였으며, 2011. 3. 초순경에는 위 사무실에서 ○○○○○○포럼 개소식을 개최하였던 사실, ③ 피고인 2는 ○○○○○○포럼의 위 사무실에서 상근직원으로 근무하였는데, 피고인 1의 지시를 받아 이 사건 여론조사 업무를 담당하기도 하였으나, ○○○○○○포럼의 정기모임(2달에 1회)과 연말 모임, 세미나(2011. 9.과 2001. 10.) 등 행사가 있을 경우 회원들에 대한 연락, 장소 섭외, 언론기관에 대한 초청장 발송 등 행사 준비를 하였고, 또한, 행사에 참석하여 각종 자료 배포 및 사진과 동영상 촬영 등 업무를 하였으며, 그 결과물들을 회원들에게 송부하는 등 ○○○○○○포럼 관련 업무를 담당하였던 사실, ④ 피고인 2는 그 외에도 ○○○○○○포럼 사무실에 상근하면서 ○○○○○○포럼 회원들의 전화 수발과 사무실에 찾아오는 회원들의 접대 등의 업무도 보았던 사실, ⑤ ○○○○○○포럼 총무 공소외 2는 2011. 4. 7.부터 2012. 3. 20.까지 사이에 ○○○○○○포럼 업무로 피고인 2와 약 30회 가량 전화 통화를 하기도 한 사실, ⑥ 공소외 2는 ○○○○○○포럼 사무총장 공소외 8과 협의를 한 다음 피고인 2에 대한 급여 등을 지급하였고, 피고인 2는 선거운동에 해당하는 이 사건 여론조사와 관련한 비용을 피고인 1로부터 별도로 받아 지출한 사실, ⑦ 위 염창동 사무실을 비워준 후 피고인 1이 친분 관계에 있는 자문 교수 공소외 9에게 부탁하여 원심 판시 여의도 사무실의 임차보증금 1,000만 원을 지급하게 하고, 공소외 2를 통하여 소개받은 공소외 10으로 하여금 위 사무실의 월세와 관리비를 내게 하는 등으로 위 여의도 사무실도 피고인 1이 구한 것으로 보이는바, 이러한 사실을 고려하면 결국 ○○○○○○포럼에서 필요로 하는 사무실과 직원에 관한 비용을 ○○○○○○포럼과 피고인 1이 나누어 부담한 것으로 보이고, 이러한 사정 때문에 피고인 1은 ○○○○○○포럼의 직원인 피고인 2를 자신의 개인적인 업무를 담당하게 한 것에 대하여 당연한 것으로 생각하였을 것인 점, ⑧ 피고인 2가 공소외 2로부터 받은 월급 150만 원 중 30만 원은 ○○○○○○포럼의 사무실 운영비로 받은 것이고, 2011. 10. 50만 원도 사무실 운영비로 받은 것이므로, 위 1,850만 원 중 410만 원은 피고인 2가 그 업무의 대가로 받은 것으로 보기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 2가 공소외 2로부터 받은 1,850만 원이 피고인 1의 당선을 위한 선거운동에 해당하는 이 사건 여론조사와 관련하여 제공받은 금품에 해당한다고 단정할 수 없다(앞에서 본 것처럼 피고인 1이 ○○○○○○포럼에서 급여를 부담하여 채용한 피고인 2를 자신의 선거운동 목적의 이 사건 여론조사에 동원, 이용하였다고 하더라도, 피고인 1이 공소외 2와 협의하여 이러한 행위를 하였다거나 공소외 2를 통한 급여 지급의 외관을 취했지만 실질적으로는 피고인 1이 그 비용을 부담하였고 볼 증거가 없는 이 사건에서, 위와 같은 급여 지급행위를 피고인 1이 사정을 모르는 공소외 2를 이용한 간접정범의 형태로 피고인 2에게 선거와 관련하여 금품을 제공한 경우에 해당한다고 평가하기는 어렵다).

C) Ultimately, the lower court’s determination that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to this part of the appeal alleged by the prosecutor. Therefore, this part of the appeal

2) As to the publication of false facts

A) The judgment of the court below

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that: (a) based on the part 2-b of Article 2-2-2 of the judgment of innocence, the facts identical to the statement in Article 2-2-b and 2-2; and (b) comprehensively taking account of the circumstances such as “Article 2-2-b and 3-2,” which are recognized by the above facts, even if Nonindicted 1 used the name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” Defendant 1 entered the name on the back of the name of Defendant 1 at the time, as long as it is consistent with objective facts, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression, it cannot be deemed as a false fact since it might affect

B) Relevant legal principles

Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that a punishment shall be imposed in cases where false facts are published in connection with the candidate's career, etc. in favor of the candidate for the purpose of getting elected or getting elected. Here, the term "false facts" means matters inconsistent with the truth, which are sufficient if the elector has the accuracy to the extent that he/she can cause accurate judgment on the candidate (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8952, Dec. 11, 2008). In order to establish the crime of publishing false facts, it is necessary to strictly prove that the public prosecutor published facts are false, and the crime of publishing false facts is not established merely on the ground that there is no proof that the public information is true (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5279, Nov. 28, 2003).

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

⑴ 위 가)항에서 본 바와 같은 원심이 인정한 사실과 사정들에다가 원심과 당심에서 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 공소외 1 □□특보단과 ○○○○○○포럼은 그 조직의 목적과 활동의 방향성에 있어서도 모두 공소외 1을 지지하고 제18대 대선에서 공소외 1이 대통령으로 당선될 수 있도록 역량을 강화한다는 것으로 같았고, 제18대 대통령선거가 다가오는 시점에서 그 활동을 확대한다는 측면에서 자문교수 등을 추가하고 명칭을 변경한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 제17대 대통령 후보자 선출을 위한 ◁◁◁당 경선 당시 결성된 공소외 1 ☆☆□□단이나 그 후 새로 재편된 공소외 1 □□특보단은 경선운동이나 선거운동을 위한 공식적 조직이 아닌 자생적 단체에 해당하고, 공소외 1 □□특보단장이라는 직함도 공식적인 것이 아닌 점, ③ 공소외 1 □□특보단이 ○○○○○○포럼으로 명칭이 변경된 후에도 회원들이 피고인 1을 단장으로 호칭하였고, ○○○○○○포럼으로 명칭이 변경되기 전만 아니라 그 후에도 회원들은 서로 ‘♡♡♡특보’라고 호칭하였던 점, ④ 공소외 1 □□특보단과 ○○○○○○포럼은 2008년부터 2011년까지 매년 11월 또는 12월에 정기총회를 개최하였는데 공소외 1도 항상 참여하였고, 당시 공소외 1을 회원들에 대하여 특보로 호칭하였던 점, ⑤ 제19대 국회의원 선거와 관련한 언론사들의 기사에서도 피고인 1을 공소외 1 □□특보단 출신으로 칭하거나 □□특보단장으로 계속 활동해온 것으로 보도하고 있는 점 등을 보태어 위 법리에 비추어 보면, 당시 공소외 1 □□특보단이 대외적으로 ○○○○○○포럼으로 명칭이 변경되었음에도 피고인 1이 자신을 “현 공소외 1 □□특보단장”이라고 한 것이, 진실과 약간 차이가 나거나 다소 과장된 표현이라고 할 수 있을지라도 진실에 부합하지 않는 허위사실임이 합리적인 의심의 여지가 없을 정도로 입증되었다고 단정하기는 어렵다. 오히려 ○○○○○○포럼이 향후 대통령 후보 선출을 위한 △△△당 당내 경선과 대통령 선거과정에서 공소외 1 □□특보단으로서의 역할을 담당하고자 이를 준비하는 조직으로서 존재하고 있었다는 점에서 객관적 사실과 합치된다고 볼 여지가 충분히 있다.

It is reasonable to determine as above, in light of the fact that the name of the candidate itself is not an official organization or organization of a political party, and it is generally recognized that it is different from the official position of a public office or the official position of a political party, because it is common sense that the electors are aware of the meaning of it, and that it is a situation that the electors are aware of it to a certain extent; that it is a reality that granting various positions or understand the use of such positions in order to increase influence by winning a large number of people who are members of a material political party as well as persons who are members of a material political party; and that the name of the name itself is not an official organization or organization of a political party.

Fidelityly, the court below is just in finding that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as argued by the prosecutor. Therefore, this part of the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. Defendant 1

피고인 1은 2004년에 제17대 국회의원 선거와 관련하여 공직선거및선거부정방지법위반죄로 벌금 500만 원을 선고받은 전력이 있다. 이 사건 범행은, 피고인 1이 자신의 인지도를 높이고 지지를 유도하기 위하여, 피고인 2에게 지시하여 다수의 전화홍보원들을 고용하여 전화홍보원들로 하여금 2011. 3.경부터 1년여에 걸친 기간 동안 출마 예상 지역구인 포항남·울릉 선거구민을 상대로 수 회에 걸쳐 지속적으로 ◎◎◎◎◎리서치라는 이름으로 여론조사를 빙자한 사전선거운동을 하게 하였고, 선거운동과 관련하여 전화홍보원 10여 명에게 합계 32,786,000원을 제공한 것으로, 그 범행의 내용이 중대하고, 비난가능성이 크다.

In order to realize democracy through fair election, the Public Official Election Act strictly regulates the act of offering money or goods related to the election campaign period, method, and election campaign in order to prevent the excessiveness of the election campaign and guarantee transparency in the election process. As above, Defendant 1 provided a repeated advance election campaign to many unspecified Poet electors over a considerable period of time, and the money or goods provided to telephone promotion agents are equivalent to KRW 32 million, and it is difficult to conclude that each of the crimes of this case did not affect Defendant 1’s election in the 19th National Assembly election. As such, Defendant 1’s each of the crimes of this case is likely to undermine the fairness with other candidates and affected the rational decision-making of the voters. In light of the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed in order to conceal the crime by having Nonindicted 2 make a false statement during the investigation process, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant 1.

Meanwhile, Defendant 1 appears to have provided money and valuables at a cost of compensation for actual expenses to 10 persons who worked as telephone campaign personnel rather than having provided money and valuables to purchase voters, and Defendant 1 recognized Defendant 1’s mistake as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act after the registration of preliminary candidates.

In addition to this point, in full view of the various circumstances, including Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant 1 is not deemed too weak or unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

In order to raise Defendant 1’s awareness and support, Defendant 2 employed and managed telephone promotion personnel for about one year from March 201 to around one year, and caused telephone promotion personnel to conduct a public opinion poll by making phone campaign to the South and North electorates. As a result, Defendant 2 provided ten telephone promotion personnel with a total of KRW 32,786,000 to 10 telephone promotion personnel. In light of the fact that each crime committed by Defendant 2 was committed repeatedly over a considerable period against a large number of unspecified port/west electorates, money and valuables provided to telephone promotion personnel, and money and valuables provided to Defendant 1 at Defendant 1’s request, and that Defendant 2 attempted to conceal the crime together with Nonindicted 2 is not easy to commit a crime.

On the other hand, Defendant 2 did not have any criminal record, and was employed for the first purpose of part-time employment, and appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case under Defendant 1’s order, and Defendant 2 appears to have committed the crimes of this case, and if Defendant 2 excluded the portion of the benefits received as an employee of ○○○○○ Forum, it appears that there would be no benefit accrued in relation to the crime of this case.

In addition to this point, in full view of the various circumstances, including Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant 2 is not deemed to be too weak or unreasonable.

C. Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

The crime of this case by the above Defendants is not an election campaign worker who is entitled to receive allowances, etc. under the Public Official Election Act, but even if the election campaign period is not an election campaign period, Defendant 1’s awareness and support are carried out in order to raise the awareness and support of the above Defendants 1, and money and valuables are received in return for it. The Public Official Election Act strictly limits the number of money and valuables, etc. related to the election campaign in order to prevent the excessive competition of the election campaign and to guarantee the transparency of the election process through fair election.

However, it seems that the above Defendants did not have any criminal record, and the Defendants, who worked as telephone campaign personnel, appear to receive money and valuables from the perspective of compensation for actual expenses for election campaign, and the above Defendants’ speech is too easily believed and not illegal as a public opinion poll confirming the amount of living expenses, and personality guidance, and the process leading up to each of the crimes of this case by conducting the public opinion poll according to Defendant 2’s instruction.

In addition to this point, in full view of various circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the above Defendants, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the above Defendants is too unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Since all appeals by Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, part of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants is reversed and it is decided as follows through the pleadings. Since the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1, 2 and the above Defendants are all groundless, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the facts constituting a crime acknowledged by this court and the summary of evidence related thereto as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Relevant provisions of the facts constituting the crime and the selection of each punishment;

Article 254(2) of each Public Official Election Act (the selection of a fine, covering the points of advance election campaign), Article 230(1)6 and 4 of each Public Official Election Act, Article 135(3) of each Public Official Election Act (the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign and the selection of a fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [to the extent that the sum of the maximum amount of two crimes is aggregated with the punishment prescribed for the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the receipt of money or valuables related to an election campaign, which is heavier

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Additional collection:

The proviso to Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Dangerous (Presiding Judge) Dried luculphy