Defendant 1 and two others

Promotionary Commercial Code

Law Firm Han-gu, Attorneys Hun-Hun et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and by a fine of 5,00,00 won, respectively.

When Defendant 3 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The five days of detention days prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

One industrial knife (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Of the facts charged in this case, each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 1, interference with each of the business, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust)

Defendant 1 served as the Jeju Do Governor from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998, and served as the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation Chairperson from July 9, 199 to June 7, 200, and Defendant 3 served as the Vice Chairperson in charge of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives from August 12, 1998 to June 30, 200;

1. Defendant 1:

9. The National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation shall be composed of 9.1 Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as "Agricultural Cooperatives"), the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, and the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation (hereinafter referred to as "FFI"), with the function of each National Federation of 10 high-efficiency structure, and with the focus on credit business for farmers, and the mechanism excessively responsible for the establishment of cooperatives is insufficient, and the total receipt amount of the National Agricultural Cooperatives Association 9. The 9.m. 1m. shall be unlikely to secure transparency and non-performing, and the 9m.m. 9m. 1m. 1m. 1m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 2m. 9m. 9m. 9m. 1m. 9m. 1m. 1m. 201m. 1m. 9m. 3m.

On August 12, 1999: (a) around 21:16, at the conference place of the National Assembly Council on Agriculture, Forestry, and Marine Affairs and Fisheries in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the chairperson was present at the National Assembly conference room of the National Assembly of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City with the aim of obstructing the deliberation and processing of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which mainly puts the integration, etc. of the agricultural cooperatives, livestock cooperatives, and ginseng cooperatives into a major framework, while the 14 members, including Nonindicted 25, were present at the conference place of the National Assembly of Yeongdeungpo-gu;

2. Defendant 1 and 3 opposed to the Government’s reform and integration of cooperatives in collusion with Nonindicted 4, the executive director of the Livestock Cooperatives Federation, and against the Government’s cooperative reform and integration in the course of full-time implementation of the government cooperative reform work, such as the statement of all paragraph 1;

(a) (Name omitted) For the purpose of slandering the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry;

(1) On January 12, 200, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry recommended the sale of (name omitted) import declines by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in the Joseon Dynasty, the Do governor, the Central Daily, and the Korea Daily, respectively, by posting an advertisement “(name omitted) on the basis of the integration of cooperatives that agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, feed, etc. may be supplied at a price lower than half the half the value thereof, thereby impairing the honor of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry by openly pointing out facts in publications; and

(2) On May 24, 200, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry published an advertisement on May 24, 200, stating that “(name omitted) the enforcement of the Agricultural and Livestock Cooperatives did not properly proceed, and only a serious time for the president of the Livestock Cooperatives using the blood of the people who did not properly go through the National Agriculture and Forestry, such as the backer money of the Minister, to turn the president of the Livestock Cooperatives into money,” thereby impairing the honor of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry by openly pointing out facts.

(b) An officer or an executive of the Federation may not use the funds for any purpose other than for the purpose of consultations;

On July 30, 1999, 5 daily newspapers, including the Joseon Day, and 3 experts including the Agricultural and Fishery Livestock Farming Areas, "low-slow-slow-scalism is not known." From July 9, 1999 to April 200, 499: (a) 41 times in daily newspapers; (b) 53,807,000 won in total with 931,400,000 won in total with 130,512,000 won in total with 169,306,000 won in total with expenses for golf course expenses and representative expenses; and (c) 169,306,000 won in total with expenses for integrated and opposing-scal activities, and 30,000 won in total with expenses for comprehensive and opposing activities, 300,000 won in total with expenses for collective administrative litigation, 3050,3005,3705,3050 or more in total expenses for collective activities.

1. Each part of the statements by Defendants 1 and 3 and Nonindicted 26 in this Court

1. The entry of Defendant 1 in part of the first trial records and the entry of each part of Defendant 1 and 3 in the second trial records;

1. Part of the witness’s statement in the third trial record; part of the witness’s statement in the fifth trial record; part of the witness Nonindicted 28 in the fifth trial record; part of the witness’s statement in the sixth trial record; the witness’s statement in the fourth trial record; the witness’s statement in Nonindicted 29 in the seventh trial record.

1. Each of the statements made by the prosecutor about Defendant 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 26, and 4

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor on Nonindicted 30, 31, 32, and 29 (Defendant 1)

1. Each part of the prosecutor’s statement made on Nonindicted 27, 28, 26, and 4

1. Entry into the protocol of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (a statement in the position to hold consultations on the reform of cooperatives, including explanatory materials, etc. for the reform of cooperatives, such as farmers and livestock cooperatives, etc.) shall be entered;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

o point of Defendant 1’s consent to the National Assembly Chairman’s motion: Article 138 (Selection of Imprisonment)

o The point of defamation by publication due to each factual fact of Defendant 1 and 3: Articles 309(1), 307(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 1, and the fine for Defendant 3, respectively)

o. Using funds for purposes other than those of each National Livestock Cooperatives Federation of Korea established by Defendant 1 and 3: Article 143 of the former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 6018 of September 7, 1999) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 6018 of September 7, 199)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and 3: Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (In case of the above Defendants, the punishment shall be aggravated by concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the crime of violation of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act with the largest punishment, but with respect to Defendant 3, the maximum amount thereof shall be added) of each Criminal Act.

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant 3: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Defendant 1: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant 1: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. The portion of defamation by the published materials held

A. Defendant 1, 3

(1) Summary of the above Defendants’ assertion

The above Defendants (name omitted) are in accord with the facts of the advertisement that encourage the sale of the import decline and arbitrarily distributes policy funds based on whether the said Defendants stand for or against the integration, and claims for the reduction of the value of the feed that is not realistic. Based on such true facts, the above Defendants made an advertisement without any purpose of slandering the Minister (name omitted) with the content solely pertaining to the public interest of the Livestock Industry and the interests of the livestock industry on the basis of such true facts should not constitute defamation by publication due to false facts.

(2) Determination

(A) First, we examine whether the above Defendants alleged false facts in committing a crime of defamation, such as this part of the facts constituting the crime.

1) 위 각 증거들, 특히 이 법정에서의 피고인 1, 3 및 증인 공소외 26의 각 일부 진술, 제1회 공판조서 중 피고인 1의 일부 진술기재 및 제2회 공판조서 중 피고인 1, 3의 각 일부 진술기재, 제3회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 27의 일부 진술기재, 제5회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 28의 일부 진술기재, 제6회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 4의 일부 진술기재, 피고인 1, 3 및 공소외 26, 4에 대한 각 검찰 피의자신문조서의 각 일부 진술기재, 공소외 27, 28, 26, 4에 대한 각 검찰 진술조서의 각 일부 진술기재 등에 의하면, 농협, 축협, 임협, 인삼협 등에 대하여 개혁이 필요하다고 판단한 정부가 1998. 4. 13.경 농림부 내에 협동조합개혁위원회를 설치하고 농림부는 1999. 3. 8.경 ‘협동조합개혁방안’을 발표한 후, 1999. 8. 13. 농업협동조합법이 공포되고, 이에 따라 농림부가 1999. 9. 10. 통합 농협중앙회의 정관을 작성하는 등의 설립사무를 추진하는 등의 협동조합의 개혁을 추진하였는데, 피고인 1은 1999. 7. 9.경 축협중앙회의 회장으로 당선된 후, 위와 같은 협동조합의 개혁은 협동조합의 기본원칙을 벗어난 일방적인 구조조정에 불과하여 결국 축협 회원들의 이익에 반하는 것이라는 이유로 헌법소원, 국회에서의 할복자해 등의 방법으로 이를 반대하는 활동을 하여 오고 있었고, 피고인 3은 1998. 8. 12. 축협의 경제담당 부회장으로 근무하면서 피고인 1과 함께 협동조합의 개혁을 반대하는 활동을 하여 오고 있었던 사실, 한편 당시 (성명 생략) 농림부장관은 1999. 12. 9. 한국수퍼체인협회장에게 ‘소값 안정을 위한 연말연시 및 설수요 대비 협조요청’이라는 제목 아래 “2001년 쇠고기 시장의 완전개방을 앞둔 상황에서 최근 산지 소값은 수급불균형 등으로 인하여 310만 원(큰수소 500kg 기준)대로 높은 수준이 계속되고 있습니다. 더구나 연말연시와 설 성수기가 다가옴에 따라 쇠고기 수요가 더욱 늘어날 것으로 예상되는바, 귀회 회원사인 백화점, 할인점 등 대형유통업체로 하여금 국내산 쇠고기보다는 수입쇠고기를 이용한 갈비세트, 선물세트 등을 다량 제작하여 향후 성수기에 대비토록 하여 주시기 바랍니다.”는 내용의 공문을, 2000. 5. 2.에는 각 축협조합장들에게 ‘협동조합 유통활성화사업 대상조합 추천’이라는 제목 아래 “협동조합개혁과 연계하여 산지조합을 농·축산물 유통개혁의 핵심주체로 육성하기 위하여 추진하고 있는 협동조합 유통활성화사업 대상자를 다음과 같이 선정하여 유통활성화사업 지원위원회에 추천하였음을 알려드립니다. 1단계로 사업신청조합(29개) 중 협동조합 개혁에 적극적인 6개 조합과 축협중앙회 비회원인 서산한우, 도드람 중부양돈조합 등 8개 조합을 사업대상자로 우선 추천하였으며 향후 협동조합개혁 추진상황 등을 참작하여 추가지원 대상자를 추천할 계획입니다.”는 내용의 공문을 각 보내고, 일간지에 ‘협동조합 통합시 사료 등을 반값 이하로 줄일 수 있다‘는 내용의 광고를 게재한 사실, 이에 위 피고인들은 2000. 1. 12. 조선일보, 동아일보, 중앙일보, 한국일보에 ‘수입쇠고기 판매를 권장하는 농림부장관은 과연 어느 나라 장관입니까? -우리는 더 이상 농림부장관을 믿을 수가 없습니다-’라는 제목 아래 “ (성명 생략) 농림부장관은 1999년 12월 9일 장관 명의의 공문을 통해 ‘연말연시와 설 성수기가 다가옴에 따라 국내산 쇠고기보다는 수입쇠고기를 이용한 갈비세트, 선물세트를 다량 제작, 향후 성수기에 대비토록’ 수입쇠고기 소비 촉진에 앞장서는 매국행위를 저질렀습니다. 지난해 5월과 11월 두차례나 「축산발전 투융자계획」을 발표하면서, 2004년까지 축산업에 투자되는 4조 5천억 원의 절반 이상을 한우산업에 집중투자하겠다고 공언했던 농림부장관이 한편으로는 수입쇠고기 판촉을 촉구하는 이중적 행태를 자행하고 있는 것입니다. 또한 농림부장관은 3개 협동조합 중앙회가 통합되면 농약과 비료, 사료 등을 지금보다 반값 이하로 공급할 수 있다고 광고를 통해 농민을 기만하고 있습니다. (성명 생략) 농림부장관은 국민의 여론에 밀려 퇴진당하기 전에 스스로 장관직에서 사퇴하는 것만이 진정으로 우리나라 농·축산업을 살리는 길임을 자각하기 바랍니다.”라는 내용의 광고를, 2000. 5. 24. 조선일보에 ‘국민의 혈세가 장관의 뒷주머니 용돈입니까? -축협 조합장들을 돈으로 유혹하고 있는 농림부장관-’이라는 제목 아래 “농림부장관은 사업을 빙자하여 농·축협 통합에 찬성하였다는 이유 하나만으로 특정 조합을 자금지원 대상으로 추천(공문서 참조)하였으며, 농·축협 강제통합이 제대로 진행되지 않자 국민의 혈세를 미끼로 조합을 회유하는 한심한 일만을 해대고 있습니다. 국민의 혈세를 가지고 농·축협 강제통합을 밀어 붙이기 위한 수단으로 사용하는 농림부장관의 비열한 행태는 즉각 중단되어야 합니다.”라는 내용의 광고를 각 게재한 사실이 각 인정된다.

2) In order to establish defamation by publication due to a statement of false facts as provided in Articles 309(2) and 307(2) of the Criminal Act, the criminal should publicly indicate false facts while recognizing the criminal as false, and should have been aware of such false facts as impairing the people’s social evaluation. In determining whether the alleged facts are false, if the important matters are consistent with the objective facts in light of the overall purport of the alleged facts, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757 delivered on February 25, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 99Do4757 delivered on February 25, 200).

3) However, according to the above facts, the contents of each advertisement posted by the above Defendants are composed of expressions to criticize the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry by the contents and expressions, such as the contents indicated in the copy of the above official document as they are, and then, the contents of the advertisement are made up of expressions to criticize the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for the promotion of the sale of the import decline machine or for the heads of the Livestock Cooperatives to agree with the integration. The contents of the advertisement are different from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expressions. However, the contents of the advertisement are deemed to be true or not, or they are posted in the state where the above Defendants did not have any awareness of falsity.

4) Therefore, the contents of the above advertisement posted by the above Defendants cannot be deemed to have indicated false facts under Articles 309(2) and 307(2) of the Criminal Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion on this issue is with merit.

(B) Next, we examine whether the above Defendants committed the instant defamation solely for the public interest without the purpose of slandering the victim and thus, dismissed the illegality.

1) "Purpose of slandering a person" under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Act is to determine whether there is a purpose of slandering a person, which requires the intention or purpose of a harm, by comparing and deciding the degree of infringement of a person’s reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, taking into account all the circumstances such as the content and nature of the relevant publicly alleged fact, the scope of the other party to whom the relevant fact was published, and the method of expression itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do7095, Dec. 10, 2002).

2) However, according to the above evidence, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, after consultation with the Livestock Industry Federation on the purport of stabilizing the price of livestock products with the aim of regulating the highest level of supply and demand of livestock products. After recommending each unit cooperative to be subject to the promotion of distribution activation project in connection with the reform of cooperatives, the Minister sent an official door "request for cooperation against the annual and permanent demand for the stabilization of the small level of value" to the head of the Korea Livestock Industry Association on December 9, 1999. In order to encourage each unit cooperative to be subject to the promotion of distribution activation project, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry first recommended each cooperative to actively recommend the cooperative to reform the cooperatives, thereby inducing each unit cooperative to have an active attitude in the reform of the cooperatives. In light of the above fact that the above defendants were under conflict with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on May 2, 2000, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, which led to the decline of the import and sales of the cooperatives, and the purpose of expressing the above Defendants' reputation as the above (name omitted and the above).

3) In addition, in order for the infringement of other person's reputation to be dismissed pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, it is true facts that are acts relating solely to the public interest, and the contents, form, and degree of such infringement must be within the appropriate and necessary limit for the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do768, Nov. 9, 2001). According to the above facts acknowledged, each of the above defendants' defamation acts committed for the purpose of slandering the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and it goes beyond the appropriate and necessary scope in its contents, form, and degree. Thus, it cannot be deemed that its illegality is dismissed.

B. Defendant 3

(1) Summary of the above defendant's assertion

The above defendants asserted that the department in charge of advertising was a public relations room of the president of the Korea Livestock Cooperatives Federation, and that the above defendants did not participate in the posting of the vice president of the Korea Livestock Cooperatives Federation, and that they did not approve the execution of the funds. Thus, the above defendants did not participate in the crime of this part.

(2) Determination

According to each of the above evidence, since the officers and executive officers of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, including Defendants 1, 3, and 2, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, have decided to object to the reform of cooperatives by publishing the position of the Livestock Cooperative Federation in daily newspapers or by publicizing materials or filing a constitutional complaint, etc. The executive officers of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, including Defendants 1, 3, 2, and 4, and 26, decided to make an advertisement for the same purpose as the facts constituting a crime at the meeting of executive officers and executive officers of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, and ordered them to prepare specific questions to the public relations office employees. Accordingly, it is recognized that the statement prepared by the public relations office employees of the above officers and executive officers and executive officers of the Livestock Cooperative was advertised the same contents as stated in this part of the crime by allowing them to inspect the documents prepared by the public relations office employees of the above officers and executive officers and executive officers, and even if Defendant 3 did not participate in the specific opposing method regarding the reform of the National Livestock Cooperative's proposal, it is not reasonable to deem the above part of the crime to have been resolved.

2. On the violation of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act

A. Defendant 1, 3

(1) Summary of the above Defendants’ assertion

The above Defendants asserted to the effect that the above Defendants’ act of opposing the integration of cooperatives was conducted as stated in this part of the facts constituting a crime, and that the Defendants’ disbursement of the Livestock Cooperative Fund was legitimate expenditure after the resolution of the general assembly or the board of directors, and was executed by the total members of the Livestock Cooperative Association. Thus, the Defendants’ use of funds for purposes other than the business purpose of the Livestock Cooperative Federation.

(2) Determination

(A) Article 143 of the former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 6018, Sept. 7, 1999; hereinafter “former Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act”) provides that an executive officer or an executive officer of the National Federation shall be the executive officer or an executive officer of the National Federation. The National Federation shall use funds for purposes other than the National Federation’s business purpose. The National Federation’s use of funds shall be subject to criminal punishment.

However, the concept or scope of "business purposes" stipulated in the above provision under the former Livestock Cooperatives Act shall not be defined directly for the same purpose: Provided, That Article 1 of the same Act provides that the purpose of the balanced development of the national economy is to promote the livestock industry and enhance the economic and social status of the members by fostering the independent cooperatives of two livestock raisers, and Article 123(1) of the same Act provides that the contents of the business of the National Federation which embodys the objectives of the above provision shall be regulated; 1. Guidance and coordination of the members' business; 2. Education and promotion of the members' business; 3. 4. Purchase, storage and sale of the members' and the members' business as well as their joint business and its agency; 5. Livestock Industry Promotion Fund or other business activities for the improvement, proliferation, quarantine and storage of the members' livestock; 7. Livestock Industry Promotion Fund or other business activities for the purpose of the National Livestock Industry Promotion Fund; 1.00 Livestock Industry Promotion Fund or other business activities for the operation and management of the National Livestock Industry Association; 14.

In full view of the purport of the above provisions, the Livestock Cooperatives Federation shall be subject to strict control of the competent Minister, unlike corporations under private law, due to the public nature of the purpose of livestock consultation with the competent Minister, and the projects to achieve that purpose shall be limited to the projects enumerated in Article 123 (1) 1 through 20 of the former Livestock Cooperatives Act, incidental projects related to such projects, and projects approved by the competent Minister.

(B) However, according to each of the above evidence, in particular, the defendants 1, 3 and 26's statements in this court, part of the first trial records, defendant 1 and 3's statements in the second trial records, part of the witness's statements in the fifth trial records, part of the witness's statements in the fifth trial records, the part of the witness's statements in the sixth trial records, the defendant 1, 3, and 26 and 4's written statements in each prosecutor's examination protocol in the sixth trial records, each part of the prosecutor's protocol in the prosecutor's office's office's statements about non-indicted 28, 26, and 4, and each of the above defendants' statements in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's reform of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry's cooperatives were decided to conduct activities against the above defendants, and thus, the above defendants' statements were neither the expenses for advertisements, expenses for meeting materials production, public relations expenses, expenses for association members and association's activities, expenses for promotion of the National Assembly's association's activities nor any incidental projects's funds.

Defendant 1 interfered with deliberation by the National Assembly to oppose the legislative activities of the National Assembly in order to improve the high cost-efficiency structure of the cooperative in an extreme manner. Defendant 1 and 3 interfered with deliberation by the National Assembly, on the grounds that they have different opinions as to the proposed reform of the cooperative as the president or vice-chairperson of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, (name omitted) the honor of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is impaired, and the nature of each of the crimes in this case, which used the funds of the National Livestock Cooperative Federation as opposing the proposed reform of the cooperative beyond the scope of its business purpose, is unlikely to be caused by the motive for the above Defendants to acquire personal benefits. Defendant 1 did not have any specific criminal power other than punishment by fine, and Defendant 3 did not have any capacity to commit any of the crimes in this case, and Defendant 3 did not seem to have taken into account the age, character and conduct of the above Defendants, the environment, motive for the crime in this case, the consequences of each crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the execution of the punishment as prescribed in Article 151 of the Criminal Act.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant 1

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, on December 12, 1995, requested Nonindicted 2, the operator of Nonindicted 1 corporation located in Seopopopo City, Seoul hotel located in Jeju-si, to Do (detailed omitted), but applied for the designation of the tourism zone under the Special Act on Jeju-do Development, which is the location of Nonindicted 1 corporation. In the event that the tourism business, etc. is expanded in Jeju-do, Nonindicted 2, who knows the necessity of the above Defendant’s assistance, requested Nonindicted 2 to provide the convenience of running the business in Jeju-do and requested Nonindicted 2 to provide the welfare fund of Jeju-do, which was located in Jeju-do, to the effect that Nonindicted 2, a (district omitted), the operator of Nonindicted 1 corporation, was transferred to Nonindicted 6’s account at Jeju-do, which was located in Jeju-do, and had Nonindicted 2,000,000,000,000 won, which was provided to the effect that the tourism zone was designated as a tourism zone under the Special Act on Jeju-do Development, and changed the name of Jeju-do.

B. Determination

(1) As shown in the facts charged in this part, the witness’s statement in the 15th trial record, the witness’s statement in Nonindicted 18 and the prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 18 in the 19th trial record, and each prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 22 and 9 in the 19th trial record, the witness’s statement in the 17th trial record and the prosecutor’s statement in Nonindicted 10 in the 17th trial record, the witness’s statement in the 10th trial record, the prosecutor’s statement in the 20, 23 in the 18th trial record, and each prosecutor’s statement in the 20, 23 in the 19th trial record, the witness’s statement in the 19th trial record, Nonindicted 7’s statement in the 33, 7 of the 219 trial record, each prosecutor’s statement in the 21th trial record, Nonindicted 34 and Nonindicted 24’s statement in the 21st trial record, the prosecutor’s protocol’s statement in the prosecutor’s protocol.

(A) We examine the prosecutorial protocol copy with respect to Nonindicted 11.

In the prosecution, Nonindicted 11 stated at around 1998, that the above Defendant was failed at the Jeju Do Governor’s presidential election, and thereafter, Nonindicted 3’s welfare foundation was established, and that “I will not see it well.” However, in light of the following facts, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 had an intention to receive money in return for the designation of the tourism district in the (district name omitted) zone for Nonindicted 2.

(B) We examine the remaining evidence, excluding the entries in the prosecutor’s protocol of statement with respect to Nonindicted Party 2 and the written statement with respect to Nonindicted Party 2.

In the 15th trial record to the effect that Nonindicted 2 was able to be designated as a tourist zone, Nonindicted 22’s witness’s partial statement in the 19th trial record, Nonindicted 18’s witness’s written statement and Nonindicted 18’s written statement in the 19th trial record, part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 22 and 9’s written statement in each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 22 and 9, and that some of Nonindicted 2 transferred money from Nonindicted 2 to the account in the 17th trial record, Nonindicted 3’s written statement in the prosecutor’s office on Nonindicted 10, part of Nonindicted 10’s written statement in the 17th trial record, Nonindicted 2’s written statement on Nonindicted 3’s written statement on Nonindicted 4’s written statement on the part of Nonindicted 3’s prosecutor’s office, and Nonindicted 3’s written statement on Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4’s written statement on the part of Nonindicted 3’s written statement on the part of Nonindicted 3’s written statement, Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 3’s written statement.

(C) We examine Nonindicted 2’s written statement in the prosecutor’s office’s protocol and Nonindicted 2’s written statement.

1) First, in relation to Nonindicted 2’s statements, it is essential for Nonindicted 2 to obtain the help of Defendant 1, the Jeju Do Governor, the Jeju Do Governor, to obtain the designation of the tourist zone and to conduct the business in Jeju-do. Accordingly, Nonindicted 7’s introduction of Defendant 1 through Nonindicted 7, and the (district omitted) made a statement to the effect that the amount indicated in this part of the facts charged was delivered to Defendant 1 by pretending that the amount was contributed to the welfare project in order to be designated as the tourist zone. In light of the purport of the above statement, Nonindicted 2 pretended to have been contributed to the welfare project, but in fact, it appears that Defendant 1 was intended to offer a bribe.

2) However, the mere fact that there is an intention to offer a bribe to a donor who provided a bribe for the establishment of the crime of bribery is insufficient, and the public official who received money and valuables must receive it with the knowledge of the fact that the bribe is a bribe. As to whether Defendant 1 received money and valuables from Nonindicted 2 as an intention to receive a bribe in return for the above Defendant’s duties, there is insufficient reason to acknowledge it only by Nonindicted 2’s statement.

3) 피고인 1의 이 법정에서의 진술, 제1, 2회 공판조서 중 피고인 1의 각 진술기재, 제15회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 22의 진술기재, 제16회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 6의 진술기재, 제17회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 10의 진술기재, 제18회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 20, 23의 각 진술기재, 제19회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 33, 18의 각 진술기재, 제20회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 11의 진술기재, 제21회 공판조서 중 증인 공소외 34, 7의 각 진술기재, 피고인 1에 대한 각 검찰 피의자신문조서 및 피의자신문조서사본의 각 진술기재, 공소외 6, 10, 23, 20, 18에 대한 각 검찰 진술조서 및 진술조서사본의 각 진술기재, 공소외 22에 대한 각 검찰진술조서의 각 진술기재, 공소외 33, 11, 34, 9, 7에 대한 각 검찰 진술조서사본의 각 진술기재, 공소외 2에 대한 검찰 진술조서사본의 일부 진술기재, 수사보고(사단복지법인 ○○○○ 이사 확인보고)의 기재 등에 의하면, 피고인 1은 1995. 7.경 공소외 7의 소개로 알게 된 공소외 2로부터 공소외 2와 그 처인 공소외 8이 제주도를 위하여 금원을 출원하여 복지사업을 하고 싶은데 그 일을 맡아줄 신망 있는 사람을 소개받고 싶다는 말을 듣고 위 피고인의 처인 공소외 6이 위와 같은 사업에 관심이 있다면서 공소외 6을 추천하였던 사실, 그 후 공소외 8이 같은 해 10.경 공소외 6을 만나 제주도에서 필요한 복지사업의 종류 및 규모에 관하여 논의하던 중 약 10억 원 내지 20억 원 정도의 규모로 복지사업을 하고 싶다는 말을 하였고, 위 피고인이 같은 해 12.경에는 공소외 6과 함께 공소외 2 및 공소외 8을 만나게 되었는데, 공소외 2가 복지사업을 위하여 20억 원을 출연하겠다고 약속하고 1996. 1. 11.경 자신의 비서실장인 공소외 9으로 하여금 제주도지사의 공관장이던 공소외 10을 통하여 공소외 6 명의의 계좌로 20억 원을 송금하게 하였던 사실, 그런데 위 피고인은 공소외 10에게 위 금원은 공소외 2 및 공소외 8로부터 직접 법인으로 출연되어야 할 금원이라는 이유로 공소외 6의 명의로 입금받은 것을 질책하고 시정할 것을 지시하였고, 공소외 10은 공소외 9의 양해를 얻은 후 공소외 2 명의의 계좌를 만들어 공소외 6의 계좌에 입금된 20억 원 중 10억 원을 이체하고 공소외 1 주식회사 명의의 계좌에 10억 원을 반환하였으며, 공소외 2가 같은 달 23. 10억 원을 다시 공소외 10 개설의 공소외 2 명의 계좌에 입금하였던 사실, 그 후 공소외 6과 공소외 8이 공소외 3 복지재단의 임원으로 노인복지나 장애인복지에 관심이 많은 사람 중에서 신앙심이 깊고 제주도에 거주하는 사람을 선임하기로 하여 1996. 1. 15. 발기인총회를 열어 성안교회 노인부담당인 공소외 11 장로를 대표이사로, 특수학교인 (학교명 생략)학교 교감인 제주영락교회 공소외 12 장로, 제주영락교회 노인학교담당인 공소외 13 장로, 기독교학교인 (학교명 생략)학교 교장인 성래교회 공소외 14 장로와 공소외 6을 각 이사로, 제주영락교회 공소외 15 집사, 카톨릭신자로서 건축가인 공소외 16을 각 감사로 선임한 다음, 1996. 5. 17. 제주도로부터 장애인 재활수용시설, 양로시설의 설치운영 사업 등을 목적으로 하는 공소외 3 복지재단의 설립허가를 받아 1996. 9. 5. 법인설립등기를 경료하였고, 위 피고인도 그 소유의 토지를 공소외 17이 소유한 제주시 (상세지번 생략) 13,180㎥와 교환한 후 이를 약 41,385,000원으로 평가하여 공소외 3 복지재단을 위하여 출연하였던 사실, 공소외 3 복지재단이 설립된 후인 1997.경 공소외 8에게 위 사업에 추가로 금원을 출연하여 줄 것을 요청하자 공소외 2와 공소외 8이 이를 승낙하고 1997. 6.경 공소외 9으로 하여금 10억 원을 공소외 3 복지재단 명의의 계좌에 송금하였던 사실, 한편 공소외 2는 공소외 1 주식회사(이하 ‘ 공소외 1 주식회사’라고만 한다)을 실제로 경영하여 오면서 1995. 8. 31.경 서귀포시 (상세지번 생략) 일원 및 제주 남제주군 (상세지번 생략) 일원의 (지구명 생략)지구에 대한 관광지구 지정신청을 서귀포시에 제출하고 서귀포시가 같은 해 10. 13. 공소외 1 주식회사 외 24개사가 사업예정자로 되어 있는 관광지구지정신청서를 제주도에 제출하자 제주도에서는 제주대학교 관광산업연구소에 대한 용역의뢰, 공청회 등의 절차를 거쳐 1997. 2. 14. (지구명 생략)지구 등 10개 지구를 관광지구로 지정하여 주었던 사실이 인정된다.

4) According to the above facts, around July 1995, the above defendant recommended that Nonindicted 6, who was his wife, want to engage in welfare projects and want to introduce a new person who will be responsible for such projects, was interested in the above projects. At the time, Nonindicted 2 had not yet known that the above defendant intended to be designated as a tourist zone with respect to (district omitted) zone by Nonindicted 2 before he applied for the designation of a tourist zone. However, at the time when Nonindicted 2 transferred money to Nonindicted 6’s account in the name of Nonindicted 3, the above defendant could not be viewed as having applied for the designation of a tourist zone in the name of Nonindicted 3, which was located in the name of the above Nonindicted 6’s name. However, in light of the circumstances leading up to the establishment of Nonindicted 3’s welfare foundation and the fact that the above defendant had been aware of the fact that Nonindicted 2 had been contributed to the above Nonindicted 3’s establishment of the Welfare Foundation and the fact that the above defendant had not been able to be able to have been able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to.

5) Furthermore, with respect to the part of KRW 1 billion additionally contributed among the above money, only the said Defendant’s contribution was made by requesting Nonindicted 3’s welfare foundation to provide additional support to Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 8 after its establishment, and it cannot be deemed that the said Defendant demanded or promised to provide the money.

(2) Therefore, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have intended to receive money in consideration of duties from Nonindicted 2. Thus, this part of the facts charged against the above Defendant constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The part concerning the obstruction of each business against Defendant 1

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 opposed to the Government’s reform and integration of cooperatives in the course of full-time implementation of the government’s cooperative reform work, such as the statement of all the facts stated in Paragraph 1 of the above criminal facts, and agreed that the employees of Nonindicted 24, the chairman of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, and the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, who were the chairman of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, shall be deemed to have worked while attending and working for the union-related demonstration or assembly during working hours, and that the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives

(1) In collusion with Nonindicted 24 and 100 members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, the employees of 10 members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperatives, including Nonindicted 21, who are the general leader of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, belonging to the secretariat of the National Federation established by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, committed a collective demonstration on February 9, 200, prevented the employees of 10 members, including Nonindicted 21, who are the head of the general team belonging to the secretariat of the National Federation established by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, from understanding the prior status for computer integration, thereby obstructing the integration of Nonindicted 21, etc. by force;

(2) In collusion with Nonindicted 24, 1,000 members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperative and 1,500 members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperative, Nonindicted 24, 1,000 members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperative and 1,500 members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperative in Seocho-gu Seoul on April 17, 200, at the education and culture center located in Yang Jae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul on April 17, 200, the members of the National Federation of Livestock Cooperative and 1,500 members of the National Federation of National Livestock Cooperative who were affiliated with the National Federation of Livestock Cooperative would stop the preparation of an inaugural general meeting and thereby interfere with the integration of cooperatives by force.

B. Determination

(1) Defendants 1, 2, and 3 of this Act and Nonindicted 26’s statements and witness’s statements in this Act; Defendant 1’s partial statements and statements in the first trial records; Defendant 2 and 3’s partial statements and statements in the third trial records; Nonindicted 35’s statements and statements in the sixth trial records; Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 4’s partial statement and statements in the sixth trial records; Defendant 1, 35, and Nonindicted 26, and 4’s respective written statements in each prosecutor’s protocol of examination against the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation; Nonindicted 26, and 4’s respective written statements and statements in each prosecutor’s office for the establishment of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives Act; and Defendant 9’s respective written statements and statements in each prosecutor’s report regarding the establishment of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives; Nonindicted 26, and 4’s respective written statements and statements in each of the aforementioned criminal sanctions against employees of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation during the process of the establishment of the Livestock Industry Cooperatives; and Defendant 198’s respective written statements and statements in each of labor union.

(2) Furthermore, as to whether Defendant 1 conspired to commit each act of interference with business of the above Livestock Cooperatives and two or more co-offenders, the conspiracy is not legally required, but is a combination of two or more persons' intent to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intention is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do30 delivered on March 27, 1998). However, in order to establish a co-principal, it is necessary to have committed a crime through a functional control by the intention of co-processing, which is a subjective element, and the intention of co-processing as a subjective element is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without stopping it, and it should be decided that the co-processing will be carried out by another person's own intent to commit a specific crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do164 delivered on April 16, 200).

On the other hand, according to the evidence of this case, although Defendant 1 was in a position to oppose the integration of cooperatives as the president of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, Defendant 1 used methods such as filing a constitutional complaint and advertising and publicity mainly, and requested the members of the Livestock Cooperative Federation to refrain from excessive demonstration, etc., it can be acknowledged that the above Defendant did not have any intent to specifically interfere with the duties of employees belonging to Nonindicted 21 and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation established committee. Further, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 did not have any other intent to interfere with the duties of employees belonging to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation or the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, on the other hand, with the fact that Defendant 1 entered into an agreement with the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation to consider that he did not suffer any disadvantage in the personnel, wages, and status caused by union activities, such as assembly and demonstration, and that he had been attending and worked during work hours, and that he did not interfere with the duties of employees belonging to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation or that employees of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation established the National Agricultural Cooperative Association by using any specific intent and any other person's act.

(3) Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

3. The portion of defamation by publication due to the assertion of false facts against Defendant 1 and 3

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 and 3, in collusion with Nonindicted 4, who is a regular director of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, oppose the Government’s reform and integration work in the course of full-time implementation of the Government’s cooperative reform work, such as all the facts described in paragraph 1 of the above criminal facts, and slandering the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (name omitted);

(1) On January 12, 200, the title of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry was damaged by openly pointing out false facts in publications (name omitted) by publishing a false advertisement on the following grounds: (a) the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry recommended the sale of (name omitted) the import decline period; and (b) the integration of cooperatives to supply agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, feed, etc. below half the half-value; and (c) the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry by openly pointing out false facts in publications;

(2) On May 24, 200, on the shipbuilding Day, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry posted a false advertisement stating that “(name omitted) the enforcement of the Agricultural and Livestock Cooperatives did not properly proceed, and only one serious time is harming the president of the Livestock Cooperatives by using the blood of the people who did not properly go through the said integration as the back main money of the Minister’s back-head, etc.” (name omitted) thereby impairing the honor of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry by openly pointing out false facts.

B. Determination

As examined in Section 1-A (2) (a) of the judgment on the above Defendants’ assertion, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, but as long as the facts charged are found guilty of a defamation crime committed in the publication of the decision due to the statement of facts contained in this part of the facts charged, the decision of innocence is not separately pronounced in the text.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant 1 and 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

From July 9, 199 to June 7, 200, Defendant 1 was working as the president of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation. Defendant 2 was working as the vice president of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation from September 17, 1999 to June 30, 200. The above Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 38, a regular director of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation. From January 1, 2000 to June 200, Defendant 1 operated approximately KRW 1.20 million of the mutual financial special account and operated KRW 4.7% of the operating profit rate of the mutual financial special account during the above period. Since the mutual financial special account does not bear the credit risk of the mutual financial special account, Defendant 2 is a person who has been working as the vice president of the National Livestock Cooperatives Federation, and the above Defendants are in violation of the duty of mutual financial special account to pay 90% of the total amount of deposit money to the Seoul National Federation and 200% of the operating profit rate of 90% of the total amount of deposit deposit.

B. Determination

(1) Some of the statements made by Defendant 1 and 2 in this court, Defendant 1 and 2 in the first trial records, Defendant 2's statements in the second trial records, Nonindicted 39 in the third trial records, witness's statements in the 40, 41, and 42 in the 9th trial records, witness's statements in the 43, and 44 in the 9th trial records, witness's statements in the 45, and 46th trial records, witness's statements in the 10th trial records, witness's statements in the 47, 48, and 49 in the 12th trial records, witness's statements in the 14th trial records, statements in the 13th trial records, statements in the 14th trial records, statements in the 5th trial records, and statements in the 14th trial records, statements in each of the 14th trial records, statements in the 5th trial records, 34, 464, 47, and 544.

(2) However, there are evidence cited in the above Paragraph (1) as to whether Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the president of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, obtained property benefits from each unit of association and paid the above interest as the intent to inflict damage on the Livestock Cooperative Federation. However, there are evidence presented in light of the above Paragraph (1). However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it only by the above evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) Rather, the above evidence and “mutual financing operations and transit business” (No. 90 of investigation records), “the Guidelines for Credit Business Delegation (No. 97 of investigation records),” and “the Accounting 4 of the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation as of July 14, 2001 as to the monthly interest accrued from the 19th National Federation. In the event that the above 4th Special Accounting Association did not bring about losses to the 19th Special Accounting Association, the remaining amount of losses incurred from the 19th Special Accounting Association’s settlement of accounts shall be determined separately by the chairman, and the interest rate of the 4th Special Accounting Association’s total amount of losses incurred from the 19th Special Accounting Association’s settlement of accounts shall be determined by the 19th Special Accounting Association’s settlement of accounts, whichever is less than that of the 9th Special Accounting Association’s 2nd Special Accounting Association’s settlement of accounts. However, it shall be determined that the 2nd Special Accounting Association’s profits and losses incurred from the 19th Special Accounting Association’s settlement of accounts.

(B) According to the above facts, the president of the Livestock Cooperative Federation has the authority to adjust the interest rate depending on the situation of profits and losses arising from the operation of the mutual financial special account funds deposited in the mutual financial special account. The president of the Livestock Cooperative Federation and the above Defendants, the vice president of the Livestock Cooperative Federation, as a manager of the above funds, have the duty to take measures to reduce the amount of losses caused by the operation of the mutual financial special account funds through the adjustment of the interest rate so as not to cause losses to the Livestock Cooperative Federation. However, there is no provision about which interest rate should be determined at any time or under any condition in the operation of the mutual financial special account funds. However, even if the operation of the mutual financial fund causes losses to the profits of the preceding month without immediately reducing the interest rate in the following month, it is difficult to conclude that the funds already distributed to the Livestock Cooperative should have been made at any time or under any condition beyond the total amount of losses paid to each general cooperative in breach of trust.

(C) However, while the above defendants paid interest to a unit association according to the interest rate determined by referring to the interest rate on the mutual financial special account of agricultural cooperatives and fisheries cooperatives, it was intended to review the reduction of the interest rate as a result of the occurrence of losses from the operation thereof on January 3, 200 and February 2 of the same year, but it is anticipated that there would be improvement of the profit rate due to the increase in the interest rate after the total line was located on April of the same year while reserving the adjustment of the interest rate, but it is not possible for the above defendants 1 to take part in the operation of the mutual financial special account at the time of the National Federation around June 7 of the same year in relation to the consolidation of livestock cooperatives, even if the above defendants were to have incurred losses from their retirement from each National Federation around the 30th of the same month, it is difficult for the above defendants to make a decision that the above defendants would not have made any unfair loss due to the increase in the interest rate as a unit of financial association from around January 6 of the same year, 200.

(3) Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yellow-gu et al. (Presiding Judge)