Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Choi Jae-ho

Law Firm Sejong, Attorney Choi Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Gohap10 Decided June 23, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 82 days, including each sentence, to the Defendants.

except that the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The seized cash amounting to KRW 2.9 million (Attachment 1), cash amounting to KRW 2 million (Attachment 2.2 million), cash amounting to KRW 5 million (Attachment 3), cash amounting to KRW 15 million (Attachment 16), one paper box (Attachment 17) from Defendant 1, cash amounting to KRW 1 million (Attachment 9), cash amounting to KRW 1 million (Attachment 10 million) from Defendant 2, respectively.

105,000 won shall be collected from each of the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The money discovered at Defendant 1’s office collected money from the above Defendant’s above Defendant to repay the agricultural loans, etc., and Nonindicted Party 1, who was son. At the time of emergency arrest, Defendant 1 took three million won out of the interest of the agricultural loans and the amount collected to repay the loan from Nonindicted Party 2, who was friendly with Defendant 1, and 3 million won of the interest of the agricultural loans. Defendant 2 was only 2 million won of the cash borrowed from son-gu in order to repay the loan from Nonindicted Party 3 and 4. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of 10-month imprisonment sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

Each of the above types of punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants is unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements made at the court of the first instance by Non-Indicted 5 and 6 of the witness.

(A) Defendant 1 was a person who won the Do Council member in the 18th National Assembly member of the 18th National Assembly member of the 1998 National Assembly member who was implemented on April 9, 2008 from 1998 to 2002, and was engaged in the activities as a vice head of the election campaign headquarters (registration of Non-Indicted 7 candidate) of the tropient local election campaign headquarters (registration of Non-Indicted 7 candidate) for the 18th National Assembly member of the 18th National Assembly member of the 1998 National Assembly member. Defendant 2 was a person who was a chief of the election campaign liaison office (election commission

(B) On April 2, 2008, Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 5 and Non-Indicted 6 of the Police Agency No. 1 and Non-Indicted 2 were collected and investigated by Defendant 1 to transport election funds. On April 2, 2008, Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 were posted on the 6th anniversary of Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 3 (the 5th anniversary of the vehicle number omitted), the 1 and Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 were posted on the 6th anniversary of the 10th anniversary (the 5th anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 10th anniversary of the 1st election (the 6th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 2nd of the 10th anniversary of the 10th of the 1st election of the 2nd.

(C) At the time of the above search and seizure, five belts were found to combine cash in the above passenger car at the time of the above search and seizure. Two of them were 20,000 won of cash discovered in the storage of the chief object of the above passenger car, and one of them was 1,00,000 won of a single set of one million won as discovered in the left-hand machine of the defendant 2, and other one was separated from the money discovered in the right-hand machine of the defendant 2 and cut off and found together with the above money. The remaining one was found within the right-hand machine of the above passenger car, and all of the above belts were printed with the name of SC bank and sealed with the seal of the non-indicted 8, a staff member of the central branch of the above bank Gangnamnam branch.

(D) In order to verify whether there was any other evidence after Defendant 1’s emergency arrest, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 6 discovered that the search and seizure of Defendant 1’s house was conducted on Defendant 1’s house and that Defendant 1’s house constituted cash of KRW 15 million (one million unit of KRW 1 million, 15 million unit of KRW 1.5 million unit of seizure list No. 16). Of the above money, 10 million unit of KRW 10 million unit of KRW 1 million unit of KRW 10 million at the bank (1 million unit of 1 million unit of 1 million unit of 1 million unit of 10 million unit of plastic ropes (Evidence No. 171 of evidence record). The remainder of KRW 5 million unit of money united the above 5 million unit of money unit of KRW 1.5 million unit of agricultural cooperative.

(E) After that, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 6 visited the Gangnam-gu Seoul Central Branch of the SC Bank to find out the source of the seal affixed to the belt discovered in the said car. At the time, Nonindicted 5, etc. was identified as the seal of Nonindicted 10, an employee charged with the said service, as a result of Nonindicted 10, an employee charged with the said service, on the ground that there was a high possibility that the money bound by Defendant 1’s house would have been withdrawn from the agricultural cooperative branch located in the said No. 1 branch, and that Nonindicted 5, etc. was also likely to have been released from the agricultural cooperative branch located in the said No. 1 branch.

(F) Meanwhile, the Defendants denied the receipt of money and valuables in relation to the election campaign at the time of the first emergency arrest on the day of suspect interrogation, but at around 6:00 p.m. on the same day, when Defendant 1 discovered that there was money and valuables from Defendant 1’s house, Defendant 1 would be true, and Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that, at the time of suspect interrogation, Defendant 2 made an election campaign using Defendant’s cell phone at around 10:0 p.m. at the election campaign at around 10:0 p.m. and at around 12:0 p.m., Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 was aware of the fact at the time of suspect interrogation, and Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that “The other party was aware of money at the time of suspect interrogation,” and Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that Defendant 1 was an election campaign using his cell phone at the time of suspect interrogation.”

(g) The police confirmed that the defendants had a knife on the basis of the above statements by the defendants, and that they had a knife on their names, he had a knife on the CCTV installed in the Glife Eup belt in order to verify a car, Defendant 1 was carrying Defendant 2 on the CCTV installed in the Nlife local highway in nutrition, and that the above knife was operated on the surface of territorial sea at around 02:0:0 on April 2, 2008 at around 02:58 on the surface of the territorial sea, the knife was taken on the flife of the above CCTV. At around 03:12:0 on the day of the same day, Defendant 1 had a knife of the above knife on the 10th day on which he had a knife on the 0th day on which he had a knife on the 10th day on which he had a nife on the 17th day before 17:0th day.

(h) The Defendants: (a) led to the confession of the receipt of money and valuables as above, and (b) consistently with Defendant 1’s passenger car driven by Defendant 2 from the stage of the warrant quality examination after the request for detention warrant was made to the court below and the trial court; and (c) operated on the new wall on April 2, 2008, with a dietitian-gun Chang-gun Chang-gun Chang-gun Chang-gun Chang-gun Chang-gun Chang-chul (the Defendants initially denied that the vehicle was operated on the same day; (b) the prosecutor denied that the vehicle was operated on the front day; and (c) the prosecutor presented the screen screen of the crime prevention camera-gun; and (d) recognized that the vehicle was operated on the only part of Non-Party 7’s nutrition Eup’s nutrition election office with a view to viewing a joint television debate of the candidate from around his own ruling to his own ruling; and (d) the Defendant did not have any money in arrears from his name or the election fund under the name of the winner as stated in the facts charged and did not have any money received from the passenger.

(2) As to the receipt of money and valuables

(가) 앞서 본 사실에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ⓛ 위 레간자 승용차에서 발견된 띠지가 총 5개인데 그 중 3개는 위 승용차 사물보관함에서 발견된 100만 원 묶음 2다발, 피고인 2의 상의 좌측 주머니에서 발견된 100만 원 묶음 1다발에 그대로 묶여있었고, 1개는 피고인 2의 상의 우측 주머니 속에서 현금 100만 원과 함께 발견되었으며, 나머지 1개는 승용차 내의 재떨이에서 발견되었고, 위 승용차 내 사물보관함, 피고인 1의 뒷주머니에서 띠지로 묶이지 않은 현금 79만 원이 추가로 발견된 점, 피고인 1이 긴급체포 직전 농협에 들러 대출금 이자 30만 원을 변제한 점에 비추어 원래 위 승용차 안에는 총 100만 원 묶음 5다발, 합계 500만 원이 있었다고 추정되며, 여기에 피고인 1의 집에서 발견된 1,500만 원을 합하면 피고인들이 경찰 수사 단계에서 수수하였다고 자백한 2,000만 원과 일치하는 점, ② 위 승용차 안에서 발견된 5개의 띠지에는 모두 SC 제일은행 서울 강남 중앙지점 직원 공소외 8의 도장이 날인되어 있었으며, 피고인 1의 집에서 발견된 현금 100만 원 묶음 15다발의 띠지에는 위 제일은행 인근의 농협중앙회 논현 남지점 직원 공소외 10의 것으로 보이는 도장이 각 날인되어 있는 점에 비추어 피고인 1의 집에서 발견되거나 위 승용차에 대한 압수수색시 발견된 위 각 돈의 출처는 모두 비슷하다고 판단되는 점( 피고인 1은 보관하고 있던 돈의 출처에 대하여 2008. 1.경 자신이 농사지은 참깨, 고추를 판매한 돈과 자신의 아들 공소외 1로부터 그동안 받은 돈을 모아둔 것이라고 주장하나, 농작물을 판매하였다는 상인의 인적 사항이나 구체적인 거래품목, 거래량, 판매금액 등에 대하여 상세하게 진술하지 못하고 있고, 또 농협에 대한 대출금채무가 5,000만 원가량이나 된다는 피고인 1이 상당한 액수의 이자 부담을 감수하면서까지 채무를 변제하지 않고 1,500만 원이 넘는 거액을 몇 달간 집안 장롱 위에 보관하고 있었다는 것은 쉽게 이해되지 않으며, 피고인 2도 승용차에 대한 압수수색 당시 발견된 돈은 영양의 어느 다방에서 대구에 사는 친구를 1년 만에 우연히 만나 그로부터 즉석에서 현금 200만 원을 빌린 것이라고 주장하고 있으나, 그 친구의 인적사항에 대하여 일체 진술하지 않고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 1년 만에 다방에서 우연히 만난 친구가 공교롭게도 띠지로 묶인 200만 원이라는 많은 현금을 소지하고 있다가 빌려주었다는 것도 역시 이해하기 어려운 점, 경북 영양읍에 거주하면서 공소외 7 후보가 청와대에 근무할 당시 서울에 가보고 그 이후에는 서울에 가본 적이 없다는 피고인들이 서울에 있는 은행에서 인출한 돈을 소지하고 있었던 점 등에 비추어 위 주장은 믿기 어렵다), ③ 피고인들의 자백을 근거로 2008. 4. 1. 밤부터 다음날 새벽까지 영양읍 일대에 찍힌 CCTV 촬영장면을 분석한 결과 피고인들이 탄 승용차가 영양군 일월면 곡강리 인근을 지나간 사실이 포착되었고, 그로부터 불과 10여 분 간격을 두고 공소외 7 후보의 비서인 공소외 9가 운행하는 승용차가 같은 장소를 운행하는 장면이 같은 CCTV에 촬영되었으며, 피고인 2와 공소외 9가 그 무렵 수회 통화한 사실이 확인되는 점(피고인들은 새벽 시간에 영덕 지역의 선거분위기를 살피기 위해 그로부터 약 1시간 가량 떨어진 영덕지역 선거사무실로 가다가 선거사무실에 잘 방이 없다는 말을 듣고 다시 돌아왔고, 당시 공소외 9와 여러 차례 통화한 이유는 공소외 9가 봉화로 가려 하는데 길을 잘 몰라 설명해 주기 위해서였다고 주장하고 있으나, 당시 피고인들이 굳이 새벽에 자신들의 책임구역도 아닌 영덕의 선거사무실로 간다는 상황 자체가 상식적으로 이해되지 않고, 공소외 9가 심야에 피고인 2와 수차례 통화하면서 부근의 지리를 물어보고 때마침 같은 지역을 통과했다는 것도 우연의 일치라고 보기는 어려워 위 주장 역시 믿기 어렵다) 등의 사정과, 피고인들이 위 2,000만 원을 받은 시점이 2008. 4. 1.～4. 2.로 제18대 국회의원 선거의 법정선거운동기간이었고, 피고인 1은 공소외 7 후보의 선거관리위원회에 등록된 선거운동원도 아닐뿐더러 위 2,000만 원 중 1,500만 원을 종이 상자에 넣어 집안의 장롱 위에 보관하고 있었던 점, 선거운동은 누구나 할 수 있으나 선거운동과 관련하여 중앙선거관리위원회에서 정한 수당과 실비를 지급받을 수 있는 자들은 선거사무장·선거연락소장·선거사무원 및 회계책임자로 한정되어 있기 때문에 이들 외의 자들은 선거운동을 하는 경우 무보수로 선거운동을 하여야 하는 점, 피고인 1로서는 그의 경력에 비추어 선거사무관계자가 아니면서 선거와 관련하여 금품을 수수하는 행위가 위법하다는 것을 충분히 인식하고 있었다고 보는 것이 타당한 점, 공직선거법 제135조 제1항 , 공직선거관리규칙 제59조 제1항 제5호 에 의하면, 선거사무장·선거연락소장·선거사무원 및 회계책임자에 대하여는 1일 3만 원 이내의 수당과 공무원여비규정 별표 2의 제4호에 해당하는 실비를 제공할 수 있다고 규정하고 있고, 정치자금법 제36조 제4항 에서는 공직선거법 제135조 의 규정에 의한 선거사무장 등의 수당·실비는 당해 선거사무장 등이 지정한 금융기관의 예금계좌에 입금하는 방법으로 지급하여야 한다고 규정하고 있는바, 이 사건의 경우 공소외 7 후보의 선거사무소 회계책임자가 지정된 금융계좌를 통하여 피고인 2에게 수당 등을 지급하는 법정된 수당지급방식에 의하지 아니하고, 피고인들이 성명불상자로부터 심야에 노상에서 현금으로 2,000만 원을 변칙적인 방법으로 수수한 점, 위 금액이 피고인 2에 대한 수당 등으로 지급되었음을 증명하는 적법한 영수증 그 밖의 증빙서류가 첨부되지 아니한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인들이 받은 돈은 공직선거법이 허용하는 선거비용으로 지출될 돈이 아니고, 선거인 또는 다른 선거운동원에게 전달할 돈 내지 자신들에게 귀속될 부분이라 할 것인데, 선거인 또는 다른 선거운동원에게 귀속될 돈을 포함하여 받은 돈 전부가 불법 선거운동의 대가 내지 그와 관련하여 지급된 것이라고 보는 것이 사회통념상 합리적이라고 할 것이다.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the testimony at the court below and the trial court of the police officer non-indicted 5 and 6 that the defendants ordered the above KRW 20 million in relation to the election campaign at the time when the police was investigated by the police, the defendants received KRW 20 million in relation to the election campaign from April 1, 2008 to 03:00 on the following day from April 1, 2008.

On the other hand, as to whether there is room to regard it as the money received in violation of the provision on restriction on contribution acts, the above KRW 20 million cannot be deemed as the money received in relation to the election campaign in light of the fact that the Defendants’ above-mentioned KRW 15 million out of the total amount received by Defendant 1 at Defendant 1’s house and distributed the remainder of KRW 5 million to the electors.

(B) The Defendants asserted that the facts charged in the receipt of money and valuables of this case are unlawful since the Defendants do not indicate specific facts as to whom they received the money at any time and place.

The purpose of the law, which stipulates the date, time, place, and method of a crime, to specify the facts charged, is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, the facts charged is sufficient if it is stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are not specifically indicated in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law, which stipulates that the facts charged should be specified as above, and if it is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged, the indictment cannot be deemed unlawful because the contents of the indictment are not specified (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2934, Nov. 12, 199; 2004Do646, Nov. 14, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, in the case of the election, such as the instant case, it is difficult to specify the date, time, and place of the crime by immediately exposing the place of receiving money and valuables, and it is difficult to specify the date, time, and place of the crime. In light of the fact that the date, time, place, and method of the crime indicated in the facts charged are stipulated as “from April 1, 2008 to 03:00 the following day,” and the place of the crime is stipulated as “the date, time, place, and method of the crime as indicated in the facts charged,” it is difficult to view that in light of the purport of demanding the specification of the facts charged, it is difficult to distinguish different facts from other facts or to interfere

(다) 피고인들은 또 피고인들을 조사했던 경찰관들이 원심법정에서 피고인들이 수사과정에서 선거운동과 관련하여 금품을 수수한 사실을 자백하였다고 증언하였으나 피고인들이 경찰에서 금품을 수수하였다고 인정한 것은 나이 어린 경찰관들이 모욕적인 언사로 추궁을 하며 윽박지르는 바람에 검찰에서 진솔하게 대답하기 위하여 허위로 진술한 것이므로 위 경찰관들의 증언은 형사소송법 제312조 제2항 의 입법취지에 따라 아무런 증거능력이 없다고 주장한다.

The previous Supreme Court precedents held that when the defendant denies the statement at the police, even if the investigative police officer led to the confession of the defendant at the time of the police investigation and testified in the court that confirmed the facts of the crime accordingly, since the defendant denies the statement at the police, it has no admissibility in light of the purport of Article 312 (2) of the former Criminal Procedure Act (Article 312 (3) of the current Criminal Procedure Act). However, unlike the attitude of the previous Supreme Court precedents, the current Criminal Procedure Act, amended on June 1, 2007 as Act No. 8496 of Jan. 1, 2008 and enforced on January 1, 2008, which did not recognize the testimony of the investigative officer, has no burden of perjury and granted admissibility to the witness during the cross-examination of the defendant, thereby achieving harmony between the discovery of substantial truth and the guarantee of the defendant's right to defense. Thus, if the testimony of the defendant was made in a particularly reliable state, it should be admissible as evidence.

Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the statement of Nonindicted 5 and 6 of the witness of the party, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 6, who were the police officer who examined the Defendants, notified the Defendants that they had the right to refuse to make statements and the right to appoint a defense counsel, and conducted an investigation for an appropriate time during the investigation. The Defendants were arrested on April 2, 2008 and were examined as one time from the o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’.

Therefore, the testimony made by the non-indicted 5 and 6 of the court below and the trial court at the court below, whose contents are the statements of the defendants who led to the crime at the police investigation stage, shall be admissible, and in light of the defendants' status and status, it shall not be deemed that the defendant made a false confession without properly hedging the meaning and importance of the confession. Thus, its credibility is sufficient.

(3) As to the transportation of money

First of all, as to whether the Defendants were to distribute money to the voters in relation to the election of money held by the Defendants at the time of emergency arrest, as seen above, the Defendants, who were election campaign members of a specific candidate, possess several groups of money similar to the source at the time when the election day is imminent, held a pocketbook stating the name of the specific candidate and the name and contact details of the majority voters together with the above money. The Defendants’ destination was the place where the candidate’s denial was scheduled to visit the election for the election campaign, and if the sum of the money possessed by the Defendants exceeds 4.79 million won, the said money is deemed to have been possessed by the Defendants for the purpose of distributing to the voters.

Next, as to whether the defendants held the above money by dividing it into one million won or more, and whether it can be seen as "money and valuables in a separate form" under the Public Official Election Act, if it is classified to distribute it to many electors even without necessarily packing gifts or bags, etc. under the Public Official Election Act, it can be seen as "money and valuables classified in a separate form". At the time of emergency arrest in this case, Defendant 1, in addition to his wall (which was not prosecuted as to KRW 80,000 won in the above wall), shall be deemed as "money and valuables in a separate form", and Defendant 2, in addition to his subordinate machine (which was 110,000 won in the above subordinate machine), shall be deemed as "money and valuables distributed in a separate form" in the above 4.79 million won in consideration of the fact that he possessed the right-hand machine on the left-hand machine, the right-hand machine on the part of the public official Election Act, and Defendant 1, in the above 4.79 million won in the above form."

Finally, in light of social norms, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants had the purpose of making the candidates for Nonindicted 7 elected, in light of various circumstances, including the Defendants’ status acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the personal relationship between the Defendants and Nonindicted 7, the motive and background of the act, the details and manner of the act, and the situation at the time of the act, etc.

(4) Sub-determination

Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are legitimate, and there is no error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendants and prosecutors

The Defendants’ act of receiving money and valuables in connection with the election campaign and transporting some of the money and valuables in a divided form for the purpose of distributing to many electors is highly likely to infringe on the fairness of election because it is related to buying to voters, and it is not good that the amount received by the Defendants is considerably high. Although the amount received by the Defendants is not more than KRW 20 million, the Defendants’ act should be punished with strict punishment in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendants’ act of offering money and valuables and transporting some of the money and valuables in the form of money and valuables to distribute to voters; and (b) the Defendants’ act of offering money and valuables by increasing their wrong statements from the investigation stage of the instant case to the court of the first instance, and failing to disclose the money and valuables provider.

However, it seems that the Defendants were arrested before spreading money and valuables received as the instant crime to the voters, which would not affect the result of the election, and the Defendants were aged, and Defendant 1 did not have any record of criminal punishment, and Defendant 2 appears to have faithfully lived in rural areas, such as not having any record of criminal punishment, except for the crime of gambling once sentenced to a fine due to the crime of gambling. In full view of the various circumstances, including the motive, method, consequence, the Defendants’ character and behavior, power, environment, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts constituting the crime and its evidence acknowledged by the court below is as follows: (a) add "the defendants jointly do" to "20 million won (Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 10, 16)" among the facts constituting the crime of the court below; (b) correct "20 million won (Evidence No. 1 through 3, 9, 10, 16, and 210,000 won)" under Paragraph (1) 6; and (c) remove "other than KRW 80,000,000,000,000 won (Evidence No. 1 through 3, 9, 10, 16, and 160,000)" under Paragraph (2) 5; and (d) deleted "other than KRW 110,000,000,000 in the main summary of the evidence from "written evidence No. 3)" to "written evidence No. 1 through 17, 65,000.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Receipt of money or valuables related to the election campaign;

(1) Defendant 1: Article 230(1)5 and 4, Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(2) Defendant 2: Articles 230(2), 230(1)5 and 4, 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

B. Points of transportation of money and valuables

Article 230(4) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment on Defendant 1; Punishment on Defendant 2 shall be aggravated; Punishment on Defendant 2 shall be aggravated due to the receipt of money or valuables related to each election campaign, which is heavier than punishment) of each Criminal Act.

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation;

A. Defendant 1: the main sentence of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act (amended by Nos. 1 through 3, 16) and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by No. 17 of the seizure list);

B. Defendant 2: the main sentence of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act (Seizure Nos. 9, 10)

1. Additional collection:

The proviso to Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)