2012 High 437 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. ○○ and a member of the National Assembly;

Residential Young-gu Odong-gu Busan

Busan Suwon-gu 00 Dong-dong

2. Ma○○, and Companywon; and

Housing Sung-nam-si ○○ Dong

Gyeong-dong Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-dong 00

3. Kim 00, Notarial

Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Odong

Seo-gu, Busan ○○ Dong

4. StambO, project;

Residential Youngdo-gu Busan 00 Do-dong

Busan Youngdo-gu OOdong in the original domicile

5. Kim○-○, or non-permanent;

Housing Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Busan Yeongdeungpo-gu 00 Dong-dong on its original domicile

6. Kim○-○, and non-permanent;

Residence, Young-gu, Busan ○○ Dong

Reference domicile ○dong Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Kim Dong-dong (prosecutions, public trials), Cho Jong-dong, and Lee Jong-si (public trial)

Law Firm Pacific, Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

○ For purposes of

Law Firm Jeong-tae, Attorneys Lee Jung-tae, et al. (Defendant 1-○, Kim Tae-○)

For purposes of this section:

Attorney Park Jong-dong (for the defendant Park Jong-dong)

Law Firm Ui-Myeon, Attorneys Nam-Un (for the purpose of defendant Kim ○○)

Attorney Kang Jong-chul (the national line for defendant Kim Il-○)

July 27, 2012

Defendant ○○ was punished by imprisonment for ten months, by imprisonment for eight months, by imprisonment for Defendant KimO, by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for Kim○○, by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, for Defendant Kim-○, Park ○, and Kim ○○, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The seized 20 Chapter 20 (No. 42) shall be confiscated from Defendant Park○○○, from Defendant 1, 3 (No. 1), 3 (No. 1), 2 (No. 2) of cosmetic futures sets, 1 of cosmetic futures sets (LG, 1, 49) from Defendant Kim○, respectively. The penalty shall be collected from Defendant Kim○○ to KRW 9,586,000.

Criminal History Office

In the 19th National Assembly election conducted on April 11, 2012, Defendant ○○ was elected in Busan Young-gu, with the contribution of ○○○○○○ Party’s 19th National Assembly election, and Defendant ○○○ was an election campaign manager of Defendant ○○○. Defendant ○○ and Kim○ was a volunteer who carried out an election campaign by ○○○○○○, and Defendant ○○ was a person who was working as a member of the 18th National Assembly, and Defendant ○○ was a person who was working as a member of the 18th National Assembly for the 18th National Assembly. Defendant ○○ was a person who introduced Defendant ○○ to Defendant ○○ for an election campaign by ○○○.

No one shall provide or receive money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteers, etc., except where he/she provides or receives allowances, actual expenses, etc. under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, and a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) shall not provide or provide money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits to a person who operates or manages a broadcast, newspaper, telecommunications, magazine, or other publications, or a person who edits, gathers materials, writes, or reports in connection with an election, or a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) shall not provide money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits, and a candidate (including a person who intends to become a candidate) may not make a contribution to a person in the relevant election district or an institution, organization, facility, or any other person who is related with the electorate, institution, organization, or facility outside the relevant election district,

1. The sole criminal conduct by the defendant ○○;

On October 6, 2011, the Defendant: (a) prepared to enter the 19th National Assembly election from the time of holding the Publication Commemorative Meeting; (b) registered preliminary candidates who belong to the Busan Young-do election district on December 13, 201; (c) joined the 000 party (at that time, 00 party) on January 10, 201; (d) joined the 19th National Assembly on March 18, 201.

(a) on January 16, 2012, provide 17 salted gift sets to election campaignmen, and 6 salted fish sets to 6 persons of 17 gift sets and six persons of 9 persons;

On January 5, 2012, for the election campaign for the National Assembly member of the 19th National Assembly, the Defendant thought to offer gifts to the election campaign workers at the 19th National Assembly member (see January 23, 2012). At the time, the Defendant ordered ○○○ Association to send a gift to PO in the name of '00 Association President' in the name of 'O00'. Accordingly, ○○○ issued an order to post a gift to ○○○ Association in the name of ○○○○ Association on January 16, 2012. On January 16, 2012, 19, the Defendant issued an order to post a gift gift to 300 Odong-dong 000,000 00 00 000 00, 73,150 won, and 17,000 won, 17,000 won, and 27,000 won, 17,000 won,0.

(b) The act of making contributions to 7 salted fish set up to Posled Kim ○ on January 2012.

On January 2012, the Defendant received a proposal from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu office located in the fiveth floor of the OOdong OO building in Busan, Busan, and consented to the offer of a false gift from the electorate to the electorate, etc. for an election campaign. On January 2012, the Defendant reported the list stating the name, contact address, address, career, etc. of 25 persons who need to provide the gift from Kim○, and provided 7 a gift set up to 7,150 won per unit market price in the above election campaign office. Accordingly, the Defendant provided Kim○ to ○ for an act of contribution by providing 512,050 won in the total amount of 7 gift set up to 7,050 won.

C. On March 28, 2012, Kim ○ offered KRW 150,000 to Kim ○, Kim ○, a demand was made to the Defendant on March 28, 2012, to the effect that “The purchase price of cosmetics gift sets purchased with a new mar gift for election campaign on January 2012, 200 won was provided on January 31, 2012, despite the fact that he/she received all of the supply on January 31, 2012, the above Defendant requested on March 28, 2012 that “the purchase price of cosmetics gift sets amounting to KRW 150,000” was changed.

In other words, the defendant provided money and valuables to Kim ○ in relation to the election campaign by giving 150,000 won to Kim ○ in the name of purchase price for cosmetics.

2. On January 2012, 2012, ○○○○ and Ma○○○○’s public-private partnership, the Defendant reported a list of persons to be provided with gifts from Kim○○, such as the above-mentioned paragraph 1(b), and reported the list of the persons to be provided with gifts to the Defendant 1, and issued seven gift sets to Kim○, and the Defendant ○○ issued gifts to the Defendant 1 to the effect that he would purchase gifts by ascertaining the subjects to be settled later at the election campaign office.

After that, on January 2012, 2012, Kim○-○ donated 12 out of 18 cosmetics futures sets purchased on credit from Y○○, a seller of cosmetics, and 3 of 512,050 won, among 18 cosmetics futures sets, and 512,050 won and 512,050 won.

On January 31, 2012, Defendant ○○ issued an order to pay the purchase price of cosmetics at the above election campaign office to Defendant Jeong○○○ who was requested from Kim○○ to pay the purchase price of cosmetics at the above election campaign office. Defendant ○○○○, a cause of the election campaign, transferred the cosmetic amounting to KRW 3,086,000 in the name of ○○○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○○○○○ branch of ○○○○○○○○○ branch. Accordingly, Defendant O and Ma○○○, in collusion, provided the ○○○○○ branch with pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 3,0

3. On February 22, 2012, Defendant 1, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, Defendant 1, 200, after receiving a report from the above election campaign office on the purport that Defendant 1, 200, 200, 200, 300 won of a food gathering from Kim ○○, 3,000, 3,000 won of a food gathering from Kim ○, 3,00,000 won of expenses, 200 won of a food gathering, 3,00,000 won of a food gathering from Kim ○, 3,00,000 won of expenses. As a result, Defendant 2, 200, 3,500 won of a food gathering, in collusion with Defendant 3,50,000 won of an election campaign, provided the food gathering with respect to the election campaign, and 3,000 won of expenses.

4. Crimes by Defendant Park 00

On February 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) provided 00, Kim ○○, along with the maximum ○○, Kim ○○, who had been working for the past ○○○○○, etc.; (b) discussed to promote the support declaration for ○○, along with the lowestO and Kim ○○, and discussed to promote the support declaration for ○○; (c) stated to the effect that on February 26, 2012, “the cost of a meal group for gathering people to discuss the support declaration for ○○” is required; and (d) received KRW 1,00,000 from 'OOOOO' in the middle-gu ○○○○○, Busan, from ○○○’s coffee store in relation to an election campaign. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 1,00,000 from 1,00 in relation to an election campaign.

5. The crime committed by Defendant Kim○-○

Around March 6, 2012, the Defendant heard the statement to the effect that ○○○○○ who received money from ○○○○○ who received money from ○○○○○, as set forth in paragraph 6(e) above, demands money from her office of election campaign to be a volunteer. On March 7, 2012, 200, the Defendant provided KRW 5,000,000 per day to her children, showing a passbook in the name of her children who lived in Seoul and deposited KRW 5,00,00 in KRW 5,00,00,000 from her wife, and on March 8, 2012, the Defendant provided KRW 5,00 to her account of Kim○○○’s Kim○, who had been working as a volunteer at an election campaign office of election campaign office of election campaign, in relation to an election campaign of KRW 5,00,00,000 as remuneration for the Defendant’s wife’s wife’s volunteer, as well as KRW 5,000.

6. The crime committed by Defendant Kim○-○

(a) 15 acts of contribution, including salted fish, cosmetics, etc. among patrolmen on January 2, 2012 to December 2, 2012

On January 22, 2012, the Defendant issued a cosmetic gift set equivalent to KRW 150,00,00 at the market price to 190 in relation to the 19th election in a high 00 residential area located in ○○ apartment ○○ Dong, Busan, ○○dong, for the 19th National Assembly member. On January 22, 2012, the Defendant, as shown in the attached Table 2, carried out a cosmetic gift set and a gift set to 15 persons who are the electorate or the electorate and the electorate for the 19th National Assembly member. Accordingly, the Defendant provided 15 persons for the 19th National Assembly member with a total sum of KRW 2,019,450 in relation to the 19th National Assembly member.

B. On January 31, 2012, the Defendant received profits equivalent to KRW 3,086,000 from ○○○ and Cheong○○○○○○ on January 31, 2012, demanding that ○○○ pay the purchase price for cosmetics futures set forth in paragraph (2) at the above election campaign office on January 31, 2012. On January 31, 2012, ○○○, upon receipt of the instructions from ○○○○, remitted KRW 3,086,00 of the purchase price for cosmetics futures set purchased on credit by the Defendant to ○○○ on January 31, 2012.

As a result, the Defendant received benefits equivalent to KRW 3,086,00 in relation to an election campaign. On February 22, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 1,500,000 from Lee○○ and Kim○○.

On February 22, 2012, the Defendant received 1,500,000 won under the same name as the foregoing paragraph (3) from Kim○○, who received orders from Lee○, from the said election campaign office. Accordingly, the Defendant was provided with KRW 1,50,000 in connection with the election campaign.

D. Payment of KRW 1,000,000 to Park ○ on February 26, 2012

On February 26, 2012, the Defendant heard the horses that 1,000,000 won was gathered from ○○○○○○○○○○○ in Busan Central-gu ○○○○○○○○○, and that she provided meals to 1,00,000 won at the expense of having provided meals by gathering people from ○○○, who promoted the support declaration as referred to in the above paragraph 4, and offered 1,00,000 won to ○○○ for the expense thereof.

Accordingly, the Defendant provided KRW 1,000,000 in relation to the election campaign.

E. Receipt of KRW 5,000,000 from Kim○-○ on March 8, 2012

around March 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the above election campaign office around January 14, 2012, the Defendant: (b) demanded the payment of expenses for the Defendant’s active activities as volunteers from January 14, 2012 to the beginning of March 14, 2012; (c) the Defendant’s wife from January 14, 2012 to the police officer around March 3, 2012; (d) demanded the payment of the Defendant’s remuneration for his active activities as volunteers; (e) around March 7, 2012, the Defendant confirmed that the Kim○, who was under contact with this○○, was 5,00,000 won, was her intention to provide this○; and (e) received KRW 5,00,000 from Kim○○ on March 8, 2012 in relation to an election campaign. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 5,000,00 in relation to the election campaign.

F. Receipt of KRW 150,000 from ○○ on March 28, 2012

On March 28, 2012, the Defendant received 150,000 won under the same name as the above 1-C, even though the purchase price of cosmetics was fully paid at the above election campaign office, as seen earlier.

As a result, the Defendant was provided 150,000 won in relation to the election campaign.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of Defendant Kim○-○

1. Each legal statement of the defendant Lee 00, JeongO, Kim 00, Park 00, and Kim ○-○

1. Each legal statement of Kim○-○, Ma-○, Ha-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, and Ma-○○;

1. Each legal statement of Ma○○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, and Do-○;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of defendants Kim 00 and the second prosecutor's protocol of examination of defendants Kim ○

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 00, 00, 00, 00 and 100, and the first prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants Ma-○ (each part)

1. Part of the suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant Kim○-○ and Park ○-○

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on the Park○-○, Ga○-○, Ha○-○, Ha○-○, Ma○○-○, Ma○-○, Kim○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, and Ma○-○, Ma○

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, and 300, and each second prosecutor’s protocol on 00, 000, 000, and 300,000; and

1. A written statement of the Do○○, the Do○○, the Do○○, the Kim○○, the Do○○○, the Do○○○, the Do○○, the Kim○, the Do○, the Do○, and the Do○○;

1. A written statement of Kim○-○;

1. Each record of seizure, each record recording, and each record recording;

1. Each emergency communications network, reply on the current status of election campaign workers, reception mail (OO) dated January 5, 2012, mail messages (OO) sent on January 5, 2012, replies to requests for cooperation in investigation, response to requests for cooperation in investigation, mobile phone analysis report, and cooperation in investigation (request for delivery of certified copies or abstracts);

1. One copy of the pocketbook, the reply to the request for the provision of financial transaction information, each currency details set, the person subject to the futures system and the recipient list, and three Kwikset service receipts; and

1. Name: ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-2’s statement; 1 copy of each investigation report (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party’s contents of newspaper work; 12 copies of CCTV receipts; 3,086,00 copies of each cell phone; 1 copy of each report; 3,086,00 won of each relevant part of the phone; 6 copies of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Party’s report; 200-1 copy-1 of CCTV.

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

(a) Defendant Lee ○-○: Articles 257(1)1, 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act, Articles 235(2), 97(2), and 95(2) of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of money or goods to reporters), Articles 230(1)4, 135(3) (the provision of money or goods to reporters), Articles 230(1)4, and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of money or goods to reporters), Articles 230(1)4, and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, Articles 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 230(1)4, and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money or goods to reporterss),

B. Defendant Jeong-○ and Kim ○: Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant Park○-○: Articles 230(1)5 and 135(3)(d) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply). Defendant Kim○-○: Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3)(e) of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 257(1)1 and 115(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 230(1)5 and 4, 135(3) of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply)

1. Legal mitigation (Defendant Kim ○) Articles 262(1)1 and 230(1) of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to self-denunciation, and receipt of money, valuables, and other benefits related to each election campaign);

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (the defendant ○○, Kim ○○);

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 (In the case of Defendant ○○, punishment and punishment for the provision of money and goods to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ who is the most severe punishment) of the Criminal Act; and punishment for Defendant Kim○○, punishment and punishment for each concurrent punishment for the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money and goods to ○○○○ who is the most severe punishment and punishment)

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The main sentence of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act and Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 236 of the same Act;

1. The proviso to Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act (Defendant Kim ○);

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. As to the assertion that Defendant Kim 00’s statement does not have overall credibility

A. The instant case is derived from Defendant Kim○-○’s information, and it is a key issue to determine whether he/she has credibility in his/her statement. Therefore, first, we examine the overall credibility of Defendant Kim○-○’s statement.

B. According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

1) Defendant Kim 00 has made a very specific and consistent statement from the prosecution to the prosecution, consistent with each of the instant facts constituting the instant crime (a few changes have occurred in part, but this is nothing more than a shot matter).

2) Examining the Defendant Kim○-○’s investigative agency and the attitude of the statement in this court, it appears that the Dong appears to have made the statement as it is in relation to the instant case (if short, as it is insufficient, it does not know about it), and it does not seem that the content favorable to himself/herself is unabundated or exaggerated, and the contents unfavorable to him/her are distorted or distorted, thereby making an intentional operation.

3) There are many cases where the above statements made by the persons related to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ through the investigation and trial process of the instant case, and the facts that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ stated the above statements to the effect that the 150,000 won was found in the election campaign office, but the 150,000 won was not stated in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not a ever-off of 150 won.

4) Although Defendant Kim ○, after the release at the election campaign office, had experienced the appraisal of the Defendant Lee 00 et al., and the above motive was in effect in informing each of the criminal facts as stated on the election campaign office, and even if Defendant Kim ○ received a considerable amount of monetary reward due to the above information, it is difficult to deem that Defendant Kim ○, on the sole basis of these circumstances, did not see that Defendant Kim ○ intended to dismiss the remainder of the Defendants, and made a false statement by referring to the fact that Defendant Kim ○ did not end from the beginning with the objective, and there is no obvious motive or reason to deem that Defendant Kim ○ was continuing to make a false statement even when he was at risk of being punished for a considerable amount of violation of the Public Official Election Act. In full view of all the above circumstances, it is difficult to deny the credibility of each of the statements made by Defendant Kim ○○ on each of the criminal facts as stated in the judgment.

2. As to each contribution act and offer of money to reporters against the election campaigners and Kim 00

(a) The point of contribution of 17 gift sets to the election campaignmen;

1) The assertion

Although it was true that the defendant sent the salted gift set to the election campaignmen, the defendant did not recognize that some of the persons who received the salted gift set does not correspond to the "person in the constituency" or "person who has a relationship with the electoral citizen", and the defendant did not have awareness that he made the gift to the "election citizen" or "person who has a relationship with the electoral citizen", and the defendant sent the gift set to the spokeed gift with the spokeed gift, and the defendant did not have awareness that it does not violate the social rules as an ordinary and exceptional act, and ④ the defendant did not recognize that it was in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

2) Determination

A) As to the assertion that some of the futures recipients do not constitute "persons within the constituency" or "persons who are related with the electors".

(1) Relevant legal principles

In principle, "contribution act" provided for in Article 112 (1) of the Public Official Election Act means that one of the parties provides money and other valuables or financial benefits to the other party free of charge, and the other party to a contribution is sufficient if he is "a person who has a relationship with the electorate even if he is outside of the relevant constituency, or a meeting or event of an institution, organization, facility, or electorate, or a person who is in a relationship with the electorate, and the other party is not present. In this case, "a person in the relevant constituency" includes not only a person who has a domicile or residence in the constituency but also a person who temporarily stays in the constituency, so even if the volunteer, etc. was in a temporary or massage election campaign in the constituency, he shall be deemed to fall under "a person who is in a constituency". And "a person who is in a relationship with the resident" means a person who is in the relevant constituency, regardless of whether he has a relationship with the elector's family, child-child, workplace, person under the influence of the decision-making or decision-making, 200. 16. 29.

(2) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) All the futures recipients were engaged in election campaigns on behalf of the Defendant, and the election campaign office of the Defendant was located in the Busan Young-do, which is the election district of the Defendant.

(B) Of the futures recipients, Gangnam ○○, Lee ○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○ was the electorate having a domicile in Busan Young-do.

(C) The head of ○○ or Jeong-○ had a house in Seoul, and the head of ○○○ Office, which was located near the election campaign office, was temporarily located in the office of the head of ○○ Office located in the Busan Young-gu, Busan.

(D) On the other hand, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○ was a graduate of the ○○ Middle School located in Busan Young-do (this is also the middle school students of the Defendant), the election campaign office changed to 00, 100, respectively, and the former ○○ has carried out an election campaign by each Defendant with driving and performance expenses.

(E) This0 is a person who runs a business in the name of "00 industry" from 00 Dong-dong in Busan Metropolitan City, which is a high school student of the defendant, and on December 16, 201, the defendant granted the above '○ Industry' office to the defendant and the election campaign team members prior to opening an election campaign office in the Busan Young-gu Odong, Busan, and he also carried out an election campaign with the position of "the severe weather alert team" belonging to the so-called severe weather alert team.

(f) Kim ○ and Gu ○ have worked together with the Defendant and Busan Maritime Port Authority.

As a result, Kim ○ has been engaged in activities to publicize the defendant to the persons related to the maritime affairs in Busan area, and election campaign for the defendant has been carried out at the election campaign office, and the old ○○ was engaged in activities by holding the post of "the severe weather alert" at the election campaign office.

(G) Mo○○ was a person who operates a specialized store for stable supplies, and was engaged in an election campaign for the Defendant through activities to publicize the Defendant to various stable organizations located in the Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City, and went to an election campaign office for up to 1 to 2 times a week, and also was in the position of ' Severe Weather Alerts'.

(h) The ○○○ has carried out an election campaign by the Defendant while assisting the work of the supporters’ association with his books in the office of the planning team of the election campaign office.

(i) Kim○-○, a senior citizen of the Defendant’s high school, is in charge of public relations as well as the person in charge of accounting of a supporters’ association. On the other hand, the Defendant’s election campaign was conducted by arranging meetings with reporters of the Defendant and Busan District Press Organization and performing other activities by the Defendant.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of all the above circumstances, the above futures recipients are both 'OO, OO, 00, 'O00, 'O00, '00, '00', '00' and '○○○○' among the above futures recipients, and the remaining futures recipients constitute 'persons who temporarily stay in the constituency by carrying out an election campaign for the defendant as volunteers in the relevant constituency,' or 'persons who have a human relationship similar to the electorates' or 'friendly relations with the electorates (it can be seen as 'persons who work in the same election campaign office as the voters who are the electorates') and who are likely to have a direct or indirect influence on the decision-making of electors.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

B) As to the assertion that there was no awareness that the donation was made to the electoral resident or the electoral resident or the person who has relations with the electoral resident

According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant sent a list of names stating the address of the election campaign worker from ○○○, in charge of accounting affairs at the election campaign office, by e-mail, and then sent the list to O in charge of sending gifts as an 000 association letter, among them.

Therefore, as long as the defendant was aware of the fact that some of the futures recipients at the time are located in the Busan Young-do, and that all of them were election campaigners with the same election campaign office as their own election campaign agents, it is difficult to deny that the defendant was aware of the fact that there was an awareness that there was a donation to the "person within the election district" or "a person who is related with the electors". Accordingly, this part of the claim is rejected.

C) As to the assertion that it does not violate social rules

(1) Relevant legal principles

In light of the method of the provision of the Public Official Election Act, since offering money and other valuables falling under Article 112 (1) of the Public Official Election Act does not constitute an act of courtesy or a job-related act by the National Election Commission Regulations and the relevant committee's decision based on Article 112 (2) of the same Act, it constitutes the element of Article 257 (1) 1 of the same Act punishing a candidate for a violation of the prohibition of contribution acts. However, even if a contribution act by a candidate, etc. does not constitute a formal act or a job-related act under Article 112 (2) of the same Act, if it can be deemed that it is within the scope of social order which has been naturally created as a kind of ordinary living form, it may be deemed that there is a case where illegality is discovered because it does not violate the social rules, but it is necessary to pay attention to recognizing the rejection of illegality for such reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2104, Jun. 30, 2006).

(2) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) It is evident that the Defendant’s above act of donation does not constitute an act that is allowed as a formal act or an official act according to Article 112(2) of the Public Official Election Act and the National Election Commission Regulations based on such act.

(B) At the time of the above contribution act, the Defendant actively carried out an election campaign after being registered as a preliminary candidate in relation to the 19th National Assembly election, and the election day was not left for three months.

(C) The value of each gift set of this case is KRW 73,150, and the total price of 17,000 won is KRW 1,243,550, and only the value of the gift as a formal gift is deemed to have been excessive.

(D) The above futures recipients were the election campaign workers working in the election campaign office of the defendant, and a considerable number of persons having personal relations with the Young-gu, such as the electorate in Busan or the graduate of the school in the Young-gu, Do, etc., and they were the election campaign and election of the defendant.

It seems that there was a position to provide considerable help.

(E) Meanwhile, the above gift recipients are those unrelated to the 000 Association, and most of which are previously received gifts from the Defendant. It is doubtful whether the Defendant, as the head of ○○○ Association, as the funds of the Association, has the authority to give high-priced gifts exceeding KRW 70,00 per unit at the time of election for those who aid the election campaign, and if not related to the election campaign, it is difficult to find the motive or reason for offering such gifts.

(F) The above gifts were delivered to the receiver, with the name of the defendant, as well as the affiliated agency of the defendant called '00 Association', which is called '00 Association', which is named '○○○'.

(G) Of futures recipients, ○○ made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant sent a gift to the effect that she would have an influence on the Do.”

(3) Comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances seen earlier, even if the Defendant’s act of donation was conducted with the establishment of a clear order, it cannot be deemed that this constitutes ordinary and courtesy acts in the form of a normal life, which are within the scope of the social order naturally created, and thus does not violate the social norms. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on this part is rejected.

D) As to the assertion that there was no perception of violation of the Public Official Election Act

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding. However, it is generally accepted that his act does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes in his own special circumstances, but it does not punish if there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding. Whether there exists a justifiable reason or not should be determined depending on whether the act could not be perceived as unlawful as a result of his failure, even though it could have been able to know the illegality of his act if the act had been done with his intellectual ability and had been able to examine or inquire about the possibility of illegality of his act. The degree of efforts necessary for recognizing illegality should be determined differently depending on the situation of the act, the offender's individual awareness ability, and social group to which the actor belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3717, Mar. 24, 2006).

(2) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) On January 5, 2012, while promoting the work of sending gifts to election campaigners, the Defendant sent text messages to POO, a non-member of the ○ 000 Association, to stop driving on the day, and issued an instruction to confirm whether the Defendant’s act was “not having a problem of sending a pre-paid gift as a candidate’s status” to the head 00 who was working at the election campaign office at his own expense. It seems that the Defendant was aware that his act was sufficient to be in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

(B) According to the Defendant’s instruction, the head of 00 was the president of the '000 Association by making a phone call on the line, and has given courtesy gifts each year at each time, and asked about whether to send such gifts as a candidate’s status is fine or not. However, according to the head of O’s statutory statement, the head of O appears to have not mentioned at the time of questioning that they will give gifts to the election campaign workers who mainly reside in Busan, including the Busan, which is the district of Busan, and reporters in Busan, including the district of Busan, even if based on the head O’s statutory statement (the above question seems to be more important than the above head 00 questions). In light of this, the answer of the above captain seems to be merely an original level of legal advice, and the defendant in this case seems to have made further efforts to seek additional legal advice, etc. and without properly confirming it.

(C) After receiving the Defendant’s order from this court, the head of ○○ stated to the effect that he/she sought the Supreme Court’s precedent and the front line materials on the Internet. However, on the front line, the most reliable authoritative authoritative authoritative authority in connection with the election, the head of ○○ asked questions about abstract and general contents by telephone as above and did not clearly state specific issues in writing, etc., the above investigation is difficult to have a particular meaning.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was aware of the illegality possibility of his act, and even though there was sufficient opportunity to inquire about it, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant made a serious effort to avoid it by fulfilling his intellectual and capacity. Therefore, even if the Defendant was unable to recognize the illegality of the act of donation, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason, and thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

B. The point of providing salted gift sets to reporters;

1) The assertion

A) On January 16, 2012, at the time when the gift gift set to be salted to 6 reporters in Busan local media was sent, the Defendant was a preliminary candidate who is not a candidate. Articles 235(2) and 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act only provide that the Defendant is punished for the act of a candidate, and that “a person who intends to become a preliminary candidate” or “a candidate” is not defined as the subject of the act.

B) The Defendant believed that the said gift was permitted as ordinary, ordinary, and courtesy, and did not have any awareness that the gift was made to reporters with respect to the reporting of the election.

2) Determination

A) As to the assertion that preliminary candidates are not subject to acts under Articles 235(2) and 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act

On the other hand, Article 95 (2) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "a person who intends to be a candidate" includes "a person who intends to be a candidate". In December 13, 201, the defendant who completed the registration of a preliminary candidate falls under "a person who intends to be a candidate" and thus becomes the subject of Articles 235 (2) and 97 (2) of the Public Official Election Act. Therefore, the above argument is not acceptable.

B) As to whether the report on the election is related

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 97(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that no person may offer, manifest his/her intent to offer, or promise to offer money, goods, entertainment, or other benefits to a person who operates or manages a broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, or other publications, or a person who edits, gathers materials, writes, or reports for an election campaign. For an election campaign, the term "for an election campaign," includes not only the active purpose of having another person make a favorable report for election in an election but also the passive purpose of evading an unfavorable report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10451, Dec. 9, 2010). However, the term "election" under Article 97(2) of the Public Official Election Act is more broad concepts for the above "election campaign," and it also includes not only the active purpose of making a favorable report, but also the passive purpose of avoiding an unfavorable report.

(2) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) At the time of leaving an election for up to three months, the Defendant gave to the reporters belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, who are expected to have a significant influence on the electorates, etc. of a certain price exceeding 70,000 won per one at the time of leaving the election. The above reporters have no receipt of a named gift from the Defendant in most cases, and there seems to be no motive or reason for the Defendant to make a gift to reporters at the time of the election.

(B) Around November 23, 2011, Kim○-○, who took charge of planning and accounting affairs of the Defendant’s election campaign at the beginning of the election campaign, led the Defendant to an election campaign, did not mention the Defendant as to the article related to the political of the term “the loan 2”, and there was a color that only the pictures of Kim OO, KimOO, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ appears to be an internal concern about the case. It was urgent to connect between the press or the local press, and that it would be effective to make the frequency of exposure early at the time of this article, and accordingly, the Defendant sent the e-mail with the political reporters (the instant futures recipients) in Busan region around December 2, 2011 following the execution of Kim○○○○○, and the Defendant sent the above Defendant a gift gift to the said reporters.

(C) While the Defendant thought that it would be helpful for the prosecution to prepare a multilateral conference as above, the Defendant did not think that he made efforts to stockpile ties with reporters. It stated to the effect that at least damage would not be likely to be caused beyond the help, and that it was prepared in order to reduce the malicious report or to take countermeasures against it.

(D) The document "preliminary candidate election campaign plan (1..) discovered at the time of search and seizure of an election campaign office" includes the provision of news distance through individual contacts with the reporters of the local area and the provision of interview.

(E) At the time from October 201 to April 2012, the Defendant seems to have made frequent telephone conversations with reporters in Busan area. (F) At the same time, there was a sense that even among reporters who received the gift gift set in the instant case, the Defendant might have a problem of advertising to reporters, and for this reason, it seems that there was a talk about the return of gift to the reporters, but it seems that the gift was back to the next point.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances supra, the Defendant’s passive purpose was to avoid active or at least unfavorable reports in favor of his election in a gold campaign with the aforementioned reporters at the time of sending the gift. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant and the defense counsel provided the 6 gift set up in this part “in relation to the report, etc. on the election.” Therefore, this part of the assertion that this part of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable (ordinary or exceptional gift is difficult to accept on the grounds that it is similar to the part of the judgment on the provision of gift to the election campaignmen). The Defendant’s assertion that the gift set up in 7 gift set up to Kim0 is a contribution act.

1) The assertion

The defendant does not have any 7 gift set up to Kim ○, and does not do so for a family affairs. However, according to the claim of Kim ○○, the defendant issued a gift set to Kim 00 while delivering gift to the persons included in the list prepared by Kim ○. In such a case, Kim ○ is merely a person who is a mere mix or a person who is a delivery. Thus, this cannot be said to be an act of offering money and valuables at least 'Ma-○'.

2) Determination

A) As to the assertion that there was no seven fish sets to Kim○-○.

(1) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) Since the investigation agency around 2012, 2012, Kim○ proposed that the Defendant will be charged with the gift to the deceased, and the Defendant sent Ma○○ to those who do not know and directed that the remaining gift will result in the remaining gift, and the Defendant made a concrete and consistent statement to the effect that Ma○ would bring seven salted gift sets to Ma○ and bring them up to himself.

(B) An Park○, Do○, and Kim○ stated to the effect that she received a gift set from Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Dozed Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Doped Dop was actually Doped by the prosecution.

(C) If the Defendant did not correspond to the salted gift set at the Defendant’s side, it would result in the conclusion that the gift set at Kim 00 was brought to the Defendant without permission (the Defendant’s defense counsel has asserted this purport). It is difficult to understand whether the gift set at the risk of danger was stolen and seven set of the gift set of the fished fish set at the Defendant’s seat, because the Kim ○ did not use it for unlawful purposes (the gift was partially offered to the electorate, as seen earlier).

(D) Gamb○○, Gangwon-do, and Kim○○○○, a person initially included in the list presented by Kim○ at the time of proposing to make a gift to the Defendant. Among them, Park○○ is a high school of the Defendant. Even though Kim○ refused to make a proposal from the Defendant, it is unreasonable that Kim○ intended to commit a gift to the above 00, 200, and 300 until he illegally stolen the gift set up at the election campaign office (when considering that each gift was delivered to 00, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 3000, 300, 200, 3000, 3000, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 200, 300).

(E) Park ○○ was considered to have been 60 years from the 18th National Assembly election at the 18th National Assembly election at the 000 Busan City City Party, and Kim ○ was a person who had been going to the election of the head of the Gu in the 18th National Assembly, and there was a mark or an election experience in the Do, and therefore, Kim ○○ or the defendant would have been able to help in the election.

(f) Park○-○ stated in the prosecution that she would not have the personnel of the Defendant against the salted gift set from Ge-○ to Ge-○, and that she would not have received if the Defendant was aware of the fact that she did not have been able to do so, and that she had paid her attention to Kim○,” and that she could not make the said remarks to Ge-O in case where Kim○ made the gifted gift set without permission, if she did not take the gifted gift set up without permission, she would not have been able to do so.

(G) Various arguments by defense counsel who impeachments the credibility of Kim 00 statements and their determination

① In the prosecution, ○○○ stated that he had shown the list of the persons to be reported to the Defendant, and that the Defendant selected those who will be able to display the gift gift set from among them, and in this court, the Defendant was divided into those who will not give any thing to anyone, and only those who will be sent a gift with the person who should send the gift. The prosecutor’s statement at the prosecutor’s office reversed the statement by stating that the statement was ‘the same as that of the person who should send the gift.’ However, it is difficult to view it as the degree of undermining the credibility of the statement (i.e., mistake or the purpose of the testimony at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation.).

② From among seven salted gift sets, ○○○○○ does not provide a statement about the use place with respect to the remaining three persons other than 4, including 00, 00, 200, 200, and 3,000, 200, which she has broken up by himself/herself. As to the assertion that there is a question as to whether the quantity of the gift set to be drawn up is 7 individuals, the number of persons who have delivered the gift is large, and among them, the cosmetic gift set was mixed with the person who delivered the gift set and the person who delivered the salted gift set, and as long as he/she intends to memory with any gift delivered to anyone on the basis of the limit of memory or does not harm the record, the specific content may not be able to make a daily memory.

③ In fact, the Defendant stated that he purchased the gift gift set from ○○○ department store to the effect that he purchased the gift set at ○○○ store. However, as to the assertion that the gift set at 00 department stores did not have purchased the gift set at ○○ store, Kim○ stated that he purchased the said gift set at 00 department stores at 00 department stores. The Defendant stated that he would not know that he purchased the said set at 00 department stores at 00, and that he did not know that he purchased at 00 department stores at 00, and that he did not have any possibility that he purchased the gift set at 00 department stores. In light of this, it was difficult for ○○○○ to deliver the gift set at 10, a gift set at 10, a gift set at ○○ department store to the relatives in 00,000, and that he did not have any possibility that he purchased the gift set at 00,000,0000,000.

④ While ○○○ issued a salt gift set on his own car, it seems that it is difficult to understand the argument that ○○○, who was in the position of an election campaign manager, did not let a low-income person move the salt set on the body set without having a lower person do so. As to the argument that it is difficult for ○○○ to have a low-standing person do so, Kim○ was deemed that 7 gift set up to be moved to a car of ○○, and that ○○ was moved to a car of ○○, the number of gift set up to be caught, and even if ○ was transported directly by ○○ because ○ was a large number of gift sets, and that ○ was not a hotly hot thing, it does not seem that ○○ directly carried the fish set. 5 Kim○○ was not aware of whether ○○ was a salt set in the election campaign office.

D. The argument that it is difficult to accept that the defendant did not know of whether the person working at the election campaign office was a salt gift set in the office. However, although the election campaign office was on the responsibility of Kim○, the defendant's election campaign office did not have been in charge of duties while staying in the above election campaign office, and Kim○ does not have knowledge of what kind of goods were in the office room. Even though there is a high possibility of the violation of the 6th Public Official Election Act, the defendant's acceptance of the offer of the 6th public gift to Kim○ does not have a little advantage, in relation to the assertion that the defendant's acceptance of the offer of the 6th public election campaign, despite the high possibility of the violation of the 6th public election law, it was recognized that the defendant could have violated the 6th public election law, and it is thought that sending the gift to the 23th public election campaign workers and those who did not properly confirm, and that the defendant sent the proposal to the 23th public election campaign workers and those who did not have been able to do so.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances seen earlier, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, on January 2012, 201, issued 7 gift sets to Kim○-○. Accordingly, this part of the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

B) As to the assertion that Kim○-○ is a mere person who is a mere minor or a delivery agent.

(1) Relevant legal principles

However, in most cases, if a candidate or his/her spouse grants money or goods to the right holder, it is extremely rarely distributed to a large number of final voters by extending the scope of money or goods through several intermediate stages, and it is extremely difficult to clarify the whole or part of the money or goods in the process. Under such circumstances, the legislative purpose for eradicating the election of a certain person can not be achieved, and even if it is deemed that it is possible for the said person to receive money or goods to receive the money or goods from the 20th election, it is necessary to punish such money or goods if it is entirely distributed to the 20th election, rather than to give the said person the money or goods to the 20th election. In light of the above purport, it is necessary for the said person to have a certain amount of money or goods distributed to the 20th election to the said person, rather than to have the said person receive the money or goods from the 20th election.

(2) According to each of the instant evidence, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) As a person who has been living in the districts of Busan in order to make gifts to people in the prosecutors' office and this court, the defendant presented a list of about 20 persons who arranged gifts to the people in this law, and the defendant issued 7 gift sets to the people in order to make a last settlement when he purchases and delivers gifts to the others, he was aware of the fact that he was to do so, and no specific order was issued to anyone, any time, and any gift was given, and the remaining gifts were to be treated as a gift."

(B) The Kim○-○, a person who did not actually reported to the Defendant, sent a gift to the Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Han-○, etc., his own land.

(C) As above, Kim○-○ took charge of a specific practice in relation to the instant gift, such as defective gifts, making proposals first to the Defendant, determining the subject of gifts, and purchasing short gifts.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it seems that there was considerable degree of judgment and discretion on the handling of the above fish gift set, such as the subject or method of distributing the fish gift set, and otherwise, it is difficult for Kim ○○ to deem that it is merely a mere de facto change or delivery. Accordingly, this part of the argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

3. As to the provision of profits equivalent to 3,086,00 won to Defendant EO or EO, and provision of KRW 150,000 to Defendant’s objection

A. The assertion

1) Although Defendant 100 wired 3,086,000 won to the KO’s account as demand by Kim 00, Defendant 100 did not know such fact at all.

2) Defendant 100 sent 3,086,000 won to OO under the circumstance that he did not have been able to respond to the unilateral demand of Kim 00, and was unaware of whether Kim 00 actually donated cosmetics, and the cosmetics futures were sent under the name of Kim 00, and all the winners were recognized as the gifts of Kim 00. Thus, Defendant 10 who transferred the cosmetics price under the name of Kim ○○○ cannot be deemed as an act committed in connection with the 'election of Lee ○○'.

3) It was true that Defendant 150,000 won was granted to Defendant 100,000 won to Defendant 1. However, at the time, Defendant 1 heard talks about the lack of 150,000 won from Kim ○ in a very difficult election campaign that was closed a day, and that he did not think about whether he was Kim ○○’s money, and he did not think about it as soon as Kim ○’s money, and the above 150,000 won was granted to Defendant 1,50,000 won for the price of the cosmetics gift set sent under his name by Kim ○○, and Kim ○ was demanded as the price of the cosmetics gift set sent by Defendant 10,000, and in fact, the payment of the cosmetics set was not sufficient, and thus, Defendant 150,000 won cannot be said to have been provided to Defendant 10,000 won for ○○’s use.

4) ① In a case of providing the above 3,086,00 won of profit, Kim ○, under the direction of 00 of the defendant, he provided a cosmetic gift to the people under the direction of 00, and ordered the defendant Jeong ○ to transfer the price. In this case, Kim ○ is merely a person who has issued the cosmetic futures, and the defendant Lee ○○ and Jung ○○ did not transfer the above money to Ma○○○○, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant Lee ○○ and Jeong ○○ did not offer any benefit to Ma○○, and ② in another case of providing 150,000 won, even if following the argument of Ma○○, the defendant 00 was aware that he was a seller of the cosmetic, and even in this case, ○○ was merely a mere act of delivering the above money to ○○○○○ through Kim ○○, a mere act of delivering the money to a specific person to ○○○○, and therefore, ○00 won could not be replaced to ○○○.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the remittance of KRW 3,086,00 is irrelevant to the Defendant’s Lee ○-○

A) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) From the investigative agency to this court, the defendant Lee ○-○ consented to his proposal that he would make after the next settlement when he purchased a gift. Accordingly, he purchased a cosmetic gift on credit from Y○-○ to make a payment of 3,086,000 won of the cosmetic gift. On January 2012, 2012, Kim ○-○ made a concrete and consistent statement to the purport that "The defendant Lee ○-○ instructed the defendant Lee ○-○ to process the cosmetic gift, and he remitted the cosmetic price to ○○○-○ by ordering the defendant Lee ○-○ to do so."

(2) Defendant 10 appears to have been well aware of how much significant influence on the candidate's status, such as election campaign invalidation, by undergoing education administered by the first executive officer several times as an election campaign manager (the above Defendant stated that he had received education administered by the first executive officer five times). Defendant 100 stated that it was difficult to easily obtain and easily obtain from the empirical rule that Defendant 1 dealt with it on his own without having gone through the procedures such as reporting to or indicating the candidate in the process of carrying out the work related to important matters, such as election invalidation. Defendant 10 stated that it was difficult to accept the above 00 won when ○○○○○○ demanded the above 5,00,000 won from the prosecutor's office, and that it was difficult to accept the above 00 won when ○○○○○ demanded the above 00 won to pay the Defendant.

(3) The Kim○ appears to have enjoyed of the readings with the Defendant Lee○○○. (In fact, Kim○ appears to have directly demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 1,500,000 of meal expenses and the cosmetic futures set price of KRW 150,000 in a meeting for discussion on the support declaration as seen below) In this case, Kim○ appears to have had a high possibility that Kim○ would not go through another person and immediately demanded the Defendant to pay money.

(4) Both Defendant 00 and Ma-○ stated that there was no fact that he received a list of the recipients of cosmetics from Ma-○ at the time of remitting the above cosmetics price of KRW 3,086,000 from Ma-○. However, Ma-○ stated in this court that Ma-○ received a list that Ma-○ had the above Ma-○ through Ma-○ at the time of the above transfer from Ma-○ at the time of the above transfer. Thus, the above list is likely to have been reported to Ma-○ through Ma-○.

(5) Defendant Jeong-○, in collusion with GOO and Kim○○ at the prosecution stage, concluded that he was not an election campaign manager, but ordered GO○ to remit the price of cosmetics to Kim○-○.

(6) Although Kim○-○, a volunteer, offered a proposal that the gift was defective to the Defendant Lee○-○, he was rejected, the assertion that the Defendant demanded that the gift was purchased and dried up according to the scale of gab, and then the candidate pay the price to the candidate, is hard to believe in light of the empirical and common sense, and there is no motive or reason for Kim○-○ to conduct such act.

(7) In relation to this part of the crime, Kim○-○ recorded a conversation with Defendant Lee○-○ around March 2012, and the above dialogue appears to have been premised on the fact that Defendant Lee○-○ had already known of cosmetics futures. The main contents are as follows.

(가) 대화 내용-김○○ : 그리고 지금 이거 보고를 드리려고 했는데 이거 지금 저번에 설 선물 때 그게 이거 지금 다 그거하고 저, 서병수 의원 집 주소하고 말씀하셨던 거 다 했고요. 동그라미 친 거는 다 전달한 겁니다. 그리고 이거는 저... 이거 6번, 8번 요거는 지금 저, 반품 받았고, 안 그러면 여기 한 사람 못 준 사람 있고, 나머지는 주지마라는 사람은 그냥 곱표를 쳐놨고요. -이○○ : (전화 통화 : 어, 어. ***이하 청취불능) 그래, 일단 뭐 그런 거 잘 그거하고, 지금은 나도 좀 *** 하도 바쁘게 왔다 갔다 하니까 뭐… 아, 그거 *** 그거 뭐 *** *** 내를 도와주는 사람인데 그래 하나. *** *** 나는 뭐 일단은 뭐 그 랬던 건데... 이, 이 문제도 그랬어, 뭐, 뭐, *** 사실은 이런 양반인데 뭐 성○ ○씨다, 뭐 박○○씨다. 뭐, 뭐뭐, 다. 보내고 *** 뭐, 뭐... 내 이름으로도 못 보내고, 이런 거는 *** 본인 이름으로 보낸거 아니야, 그지? -김○○ : 그렇죠, 그렇지마는 결국은 선거 때 좀 도와달라고 인제 그렇게 얘기를 하는 게야, 그렇게 하는... -이○○ : 다. 그렇게, 그렇게 ***. 그런데 내가 별로 지금 익숙하지가 않아가지고, 그것도 내 사실은 믿음 속에서 하기는 했지마는 해놓고도 *** 좀 이상하다. 그런 생각을 가졌어. 그거는 내가 표현은 안 했는데 *** -김○○ : 왜 그렇냐면 저도 지금 이 사람들하고 몇 년 동안 연락도 안하고 있다가 갑자기 가서 손을 내밀면서 표를 빌려달라고 할 수도 없고, -이○○ : 그런데, 그런데 내가 가지고 있는 네트워크 ***, 조직이 아무리 허술하게 봐도 우리 조직이 가지고 있는 네트웍이 있는데... -김○○ : 예, 그런데 그때는 그거 저기 그... 후보님이 그때 *** 줬을 적에 성○○씨 ***다. 내, 내 *** 아, 그러면 빼입시다. 하고 빼버리듯이 서로 간에 겹치고, 내가 그거 후보님의 정보를 모르다보니까. -이○○ : 일단 내가 계속 관찰을 하겠어요 …

(B) On this point, Defendant Lee○-○ asserts that ① the tape in which the above conversation was recorded was intentionally fabricated and edited by extracting only the parts favorable to himself, and ② he was in telephone call with another person at the time of the above conversation, and that he was only in a fluent response without properly hearing it due to the lack of interest in the speech of Kim○-○.

As to the first argument, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., ① Kim○ appears to have recorded the contents of conversations with a recording machine with a high-level of recording technology, as today, it appears that today’s high-level of recording technology belongs to a relatively lower method of recording. Prosecution also stored the recording tape in a computer file by reproducing the recording tape in a form of a file with a view to creating the recording tape in a file. ② Kim○○ recorded the recording tape including the above recording tape, and ② recorded the recording tape in a total of seven recorded tapes, including the above recording tape, and the contents of conversations deemed to be unnecessary and disadvantageous to Kim○○○. ③ Although there are many parts of the recorded contents, it appears to have been difficult to listen to the contents of the recorded contents, this appears to have been difficult to find that it was due to the fact that it was difficult to ○○○○○’s intentional manipulation of the contents of the recorded contents, including the above recording tape, etc.

As a result of the second argument, the court directly listened to the above contents of the recording, while Defendant 00 in the way of the conversation, Defendant 2 had been engaged in a telephone call with another person, it was limited to three times in the first half of the conversation, and Defendant 2 suspended Defendant 3’s speech while the phone call was in operation. Defendant 00 did not ask Defendant 2 at the end of Kim ○○, and Defendant 2 did not answer at all, or she did not see Defendant 200, considering these circumstances, Defendant 00 concentrated on the conversation with Kim ○, such as sufficiently understanding and responding to the horses made by Kim ○○.

(8) Various arguments by defense counsel who impeachments the credibility of Kim 00 statements and their determination

(A) Although there is a high possibility of a violation of the Public Official Election Act, Defendant ○○’s acceptance of the offer of Kim○-○’s New gift does not have a strong profit. Meanwhile, Defendant ○○ did not think that the above gift was sent to Defendant ○○○-○. Kim○-○ has made one’s gift in mind that he would go to the election of the head of the Gu in the future. Furthermore, Defendant ○○-○ did not have to pay actual expenses, such as the deep value and transportation expenses, to volunteers, and Defendant ○○-○, who did not have to pay for the sale of cosmetics, is not easy to understand. ① First, the above cosmetics were purchased in the name of Kim○-○, and the price was settled in the name of Kim0, and it was not clearly revealed that it was related to the election campaign office externally. This is difficult to view that Defendant ○○-○’s acceptance of the offer of Kim○-○’s new gift in the future, but at the time of the election campaign to remove the problem that he could have in possession in advance.

(B) The assertion that all the futures recipients are relatives, relatives, or relatives of Kim ○○, and that there is little possibility that they may have an influence on the election in light of the social status and occupation of the above futures recipients, it is difficult to conclude that Kim ○, while Kim ○, mainly engaged in gifts to their own actors, it seems that it is a natural reason in view of the nature of being a connection. Kim ○ appears to have drawn up to what degree of tickets are available in the districts of Busan, and that Kim ○ appears to be a person who is thought to be able to secure a mark or to be helpful to the election among his own figures, and it is difficult to conclude that the above futures recipients are those who are not likely to have an influence on the election.

(C) With respect to the assertion that there is a question about whether the quantity of a cosmetic futures set is accurate and several individuals, it seems that the Kim○, Ma○○, etc., cannot be understood as not being able to properly memory the quantity in light of the limit of memory.

(D) On the list presented by Kim○-○, there was a name of 20 persons, and among them, only 13 additional 13 persons will be exempted from the gift. Of them, it is not easy for Kim○-○ to purchase or purchase 18 copies of the cosmetic futures. In light of the argument that Kim○-○ demanded that the number of the cosmetic futures would be changed within a certain amount of amount, not from the beginning to purchase the cosmetic futures, but from the beginning to ○○-○. Accordingly, the kind and quantity of the cosmetics would have been determined (and it can be prepared to be somewhat sufficient).

(E) Although Kim 00 made a gift to a person who was not originally reported to the OO on the list, it was considered that the gift was delivered to a person who did not appear as a person who made the gift upon receiving a report and instructions, it may be deemed that the gift was made within a certain discretion given by the Defendant ○○ to Kim ○ in relation to the cosmetic gift.

(F) As to the assertion that the Defendant ○○’s gift left over at the risk of violating the Public Official Election Act did not use it beneficially for those who live in the election campaign office, and the fact that the Defendant ○○○ intended to know about the remaining gift was contrary to the common sense, it seems that the Defendant ○○ was in charge of the implementation of the work, reliance on the degree of her reliance on her reliance on her Kim○-○. In such a situation, it seems that the Defendant ○○ would not have any special reason to allow the Defendant ○○○○ to process the gift left over to Kim○-○ who was the lead of working in relation to the cosmetics. In full view of all the above circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant ○○○ offered benefits equivalent to KRW 3,086,00 to Kim○-○, and thus, it is not reasonable to accept the allegation that there is no relation between the Defendant ○○○○○ and his defense counsel’s interest in the election campaign and his defense counsel’s interests.

A) Relevant legal principles

In relation to an election campaign under Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, the term "in relation to an election campaign" refers to "a motive for matters concerning an election campaign", which is more broad than "for an election campaign", and even if there was no purpose of influencing the purpose or election, the act itself was established in the need to regulate the act that is likely to infringe on the freedom and fairness of the election. Therefore, the provision of money and valuables does not necessarily require the payment of the election campaign, and it includes what is related to the election campaign, such as the cost of providing information related to the election campaign and the cost of fee for the election affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2370, Jun. 27, 2006).

In addition, in a case where money and valuables are received by deceiving a political party as if the party did not have an intention or ability to get a ceiling in the election of a member of the National Assembly, both the crime of accepting money and valuables and the crime of fraud under the Public Official Election Act are established and both crimes of receiving money and valuables are established, and in this case, money and valuables are provided as a candidate even to a person who provided the above money and valuables. Thus, even if there is a certain degree of defect in the decision making process, the above act also constitutes a crime of receiving money and valuables related to public relations under the Public Official Election Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do834, Apr. 23, 2009).

B) provide a benefit equivalent to KRW 3,086,000.

Defendant Jeong-○, without knowing whether ○○ was actually a cosmetic gift, remitted money to ○○ in the name of Kim○○, and cosmetics were sent in the name of Kim○○, and all of the futures recipients were aware of Kim○○’s gift. However, as long as Defendant Jong-○ transferred KRW 3,086,00 to POO in the name of Kim○-○’s name, the said money was considered as the price of the gift that was left to ○○○ for an election, inasmuch as the said money was thought to be the price of the gift that was left to POO by Kim○-○ at the time of remitting Kim○-○’s transfer of KRW 3,086,00

C) provide 150,000 won

(1) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) On March 28, 2012, 201, Kim○ made a concrete and consistent statement to the effect that the Defendant ○○ was erroneous in calculating the price for cosmetics at the election campaign office from the investigative agency to the court of law, and thus, Defendant 150,000 won was insufficient. Defendant 00 will take away KRW 150,000 from the wallet.

(B) Defendant ○○ appears to have been in a state of being going to ○○○○○○ Party’s election and going to Gongcheon through the presidential election. In any case, Defendant ○○ appears to have been well aware of what constitutes a violation of the Public Official Election Act. Defendant ○○, who was in such a position, demanded money for the payment of the cosmetic 100, which was already released at the election campaign office, even though he did not ask for the payment of the cosmetic 100, which was already released at the election campaign office, seems to have violated the empirical rule.

(C) In addition, the Defendant ○○ made a false statement at the prosecutor’s office that there was no evidence of 150,000 won to the Kim○, and there is no explanation as to the reasons therefor. (d) In relation to the crime in this part, Kim○ recorded a conversation with the Defendant ○○ around March 28, 2012, and the major contents of the conversation are as follows.

<대화내용> -김○○ : 아, 그리고 맞다!그걸 좀 얘기를 해 주셔야 되겠습니다. 뭐냐 하면 그때설 선물로 300만 원 좀 넘게 보냈는데 15만 원인가, 적게 들었다고 어제 아레 연락이 집사람 편으로 왔다. 하더라고예. 그래서 국장님한테 얘기는 했는데, 그 설 선물. -이○○ : 뭘 *** -김○○ : 그때 그 화장품을 사면서.... -이○○ : 어디로 들어와? -김○○ : 돈 송금을 국장님한테 시켜드렸는데 *** 물어보니까 “누구한테 얼마를 보냈습 니까?” 하니까 *** 보냈기는 보냈는데... 누구... 안 물어봤거든예. 안 물어봤는데 “돈에 조금 차이가 있다고 하던데...” 이러니까 “그거는 보내줄게요” 이랬는데 “액수가 어째 됩니까” 하니까 “그거는 오래 돼가 기억이 안 난다” 하더라고예. 그런데 오늘 또 집사람한테로 어째 됐는가 물어본다고 해서 그래서 나는 15만 원인가, 그거 하나 값인 모양이더라고예. 그래서 그거는 후보님이 알고 계시면 나중에라도 안 갚아주겠나 이러면서 내가 이랬는데, 그거는 나중에 국장님하고 얘기를 해 갖고 하면 되겠지예. -이○○ : 내가 지금 줄게. -김○○ : 아닙니다. -이○○ : 으으응. 그런 거야 뭐 *** *** *** -김○○ : 예, 그러면 15만 원 받은 걸로 해 갖고, 영수증 하나 써드릴까예. -이○○ : 아이고~ 무슨! -김○○ : 그러면 화장품 값 304만 원인가 하고, 이거 15만 원하고 그렇게 받은 걸로 그 렇게...

- - ○○: Egroma, fish,******

(E) Even if Kim○-○ demanded KRW 150,00 as the price for the cosmetic futures sheet sent by Kim○-○ in his name, and received the above money on account of the lack of the price for the cosmetic, it is reasonable to view that at the time of paying the above money to Kim○-○, Defendant Lee○-○’s intention at the time of paying the above money to Kim○-○, and that Kim○-○ paid the price for the cosmetic to a person to receive assistance in an election

(2) Comprehensively taking account of all the above circumstances, it can be recognized that the Defendant’s ○○○ offered KRW 150,000 to Kim○○○ was also carried out “in connection with an election campaign.” Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

3) As to the assertion that Kim 00 is a mere person who is a mere minor or a delivery agent.

A person who ordered a cosmetic to purchase a cosmetic to ○○○ by ordering a cosmetic to sell the cosmetic. A person who externally transferred the cosmetic price to ○○○○○○, and he was an obligor Kim○○, and an election campaign office does not appear at all in the purchase and settlement of the cosmetic. Therefore, payment of the cosmetic price to ○○○ is externally performed by Kim○, and it would be a principle settlement form that Kim○ received money from the ○○○○○○, and directly pays ○○○, but in this case, payment of the cosmetic price to ○○○ was made only in the form of direct remittance to ○○○○ by Defendant O○ by omitting the intermediate stage. Accordingly, in this case, Defendant Lee○-○, a debtor in an external relationship, and only he paid his own debt as a result (the ○○○○, a person who obtained an economic contribution by paying the cosmetic price with the funds of an election campaign office, and therefore, he cannot be accepted as being replaced by the ○○○○ or his defense counsel.

4. As to the provision of KRW 1,500,000 to Defendant Lee OO, Kim 00

A. The assertion

Although Defendant ○○ Kim○-○ has given KRW 1,50,000 over two occasions to Kim○-○, Defendant 1 is an act unrelated to Defendant Lee○-○, and ② Kim○-○ received KRW 1,500,000 from Defendant Kim○-○ under the pretext of using it for the meal expenses of a specific group already planned. As such, it cannot be deemed as an act of offering money and valuables to Kim○-○, who is in the position of delivery, merely changing or changing the nature of the above KRW 1,50,000 on the ground that he paid KRW 1,50,000 to Defendant Kim○-○ in the position of delivery.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that it is irrelevant to Defendant ○○○

A) Relevant legal principles

In the case of co-offenders who act in collusion with two or more persons, a public offering does not require any legal penalty, but is sufficient if there is an implied communication with each other regarding the joint execution of a crime directly or indirectly, and if there is no direct evidence, it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do868, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) Since the investigation agency to this court, Kim○-○ is in need of expenses related to the meal group related to the declaration of support from the defendant to this court. As the defendant Lee○-○ talks about the defendant Kim○-○, this case is bringing about money from the above Kim○, thereby introducing the defendant Kim○-○, and accordingly, receiving KRW 1,500,000 from the defendant Kim○-○.

(2) On February 22, 2012, at the prosecutor’s office and in this court, Defendant Kim ○ initially met Kim ○○ at the election campaign office. Defendant Lee ○ introduced that Defendant Lee ○ was a person who was extremely on the camp. At that time, Kim ○ stated to the effect that Defendant Lee ○ would not have to bear the burden of us, and that Defendant Lee ○ would not have to bear the burden of us. (3) Park ○ made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “I would like to know about the cost of the meeting to Kim ○ before a meeting for the declaration of support was held on February 22, 2012, and how I would like to know about the cost of the meeting to ○○○ before the meeting for the declaration of support was held on February 22, 2012. The degree and amount of two teams, first of all, for Kim 00, which was 200, and that the expenses of the election of ○○ may be considered to have been 00.”

(4) In a case where there was no prior talk about meal expenses between Defendant ○○ and Defendant Kim○, on February 22, 2012, in which case Kim○ and Defendant Kim○○ did not first talk with Defendant ○○, it seems that the demand for money was contrary to the common sense that Kim○○ demanded money by carrying out a meeting related to the gathering of support declarations for Defendant ○○○○○. Defendant Kim○ appears to have been sufficiently aware of the fact that a large amount of money is likely to occur in connection with an election in the position of aiding and abetting the election campaign of Defendant ○○, from the standpoint of aiding and abetting the election campaign of Defendant ○○, if there was a large amount of money, there was a large amount of money, such as the violation of the Public Official Election Act, etc.). As above, it is difficult to understand that the act following the risk was handled without the direction of Defendant OO, and that Defendant ○○ did not later reported to Defendant ○○.

(5) Before a meeting to discuss the statement of Park ○○ and the support declaration on February 22, 2012, 2012, she said that Park ○ was not allowed to leave several people, and she was understood as a speech that she did not request money, and that she reported to ○○○○. According to this court’s statement, it seems that she had already talked prior to February 22, 2012 about the issue of expenses relating to the meeting of the support declaration, and there is sufficient room to deem that there was a discussion between ○○ and Kim ○○, that Defendant should pay the expenses incurred in the above meeting.

(6) In relation to this part of the crime, Kim○-○ recorded a conversation with Defendant Lee 00 around March 2012. The above dialogue appears to have been made on the premise that Defendant Lee○-○ had already known of the payment of KRW 1,500,000. The main contents of the conversation are as follows.

The content of Magla - Gim - Gim - Gim - Kim○ 1.5 million won (1.5 million won) prior to .. He did not receive 1.0 million won (1.00 million won) since he had been introduced with her, he did not know about how he would become a candidate for the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country.

(7) Some of the defense counsel's arguments against the credibility of Kim○○'s statement and their determination

(A) As to the assertion that there is a different statement between the prosecutor's office and this court concerning the situation at the time of receiving money from the defendant Kim○-○, it seems that there are some different parts in relation to the situation at the time of receiving money, but it is nothing more than a very abstract matter.

(B) As to the assertion that it is difficult to understand that Defendant 00, who is not a person residing in an election campaign office, had Defendant Kim○-○ give money to Defendant Kim○-○. Defendant 00 seems to have shown a close place to the extent that he knows Defendant Kim○-○ for a long time and knows good jobs even after he was released from Defendant Kim 00-processing. Thus, it is sufficiently possible to give a person who is ordinary trust, as above, to handle issues related to expenses that may be problematic under the Public Official Election Act.

(C) If Defendant ○○○○’s order provides money to Defendant ○○, the argument that Defendant ○○○ would faithfully follow the direction of Defendant ○○○○○○ by providing KRW 3,00,000 upon the demand of Kim○○○○, Defendant ○○○, as Defendant ○○○, may be deemed to have paid an amount within the scope of the party ○○○○’s own financing costs, in a situation where the number of the participants at a meeting at that time and the necessary meal costs are not clearly specified, in which the number of persons who would attend the meeting at that time and the necessary meal costs, etc. are not clearly specified, the Defendant ○○○ who received a comprehensive order to handle the affairs related to the payment of meal costs, as Defendant ○○○’

B) Comprehensively taking account of all the above circumstances, the facts cited by the Defendant ○○○ to offer KRW 1,500,000 to Kim○○○ may be fully recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant ○○○, Kim○○, and his defense counsel are not acceptable.

2) As to the assertion that Kim○-○ is a mere person who is a mere minor or a delivery agent.

A) According to each of the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) At the time that Defendant Kim○○ paid KRW 1,500,000 to Kim○○, there was no decision on the exact number of the persons who will attend the meal meetings related to the support declaration, or the meal costs required per person.

(2) The Defendant’s Lee○-○ does not seem to specifically specify that each person will pay the meal cost by giving the said money to Kim○-○○.

(3) Of KRW 1,500,000, which was paid as meal expenses to Park○○○, 1,000,000 which was paid as meal expenses, Kim○ paid to the said money to preserve the expenses required for meals with the said money. However, if there is any remaining money, the support declaration was not made, and the mind was used as a drinking place for the future of the maximum ○○ and Kim○○. Meanwhile, the remaining KRW 500,000, which was not used, was returned to Defendant Kim○ through 00,000.

(4) The promotion of meetings for the declaration of support to the Defendant ○○○○ of the party personnel appears to have arisen from the proposal of Kim○○○.

B) Comprehensively taking account of all the above circumstances, it appears that there was considerable room for judgment and discretion in relation to the use of the above KRW 1,500,000 to Kim○○, and Kim○ cannot be deemed that the use of the above KRW 1,50,000 was merely a simple person or a replaced person. Accordingly, Defendant Lee○, and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

5. As to the receipt and delivery of KRW 1,000,000 by Defendant Park Poe-○

A. The assertion

Defendant Park ○ received KRW 1,00,000 from Kim○-○. However, this is not a meal group for discussion on the support declaration, but a meal group for discussion on the support declaration was cancelled, and thus, Defendant Park ○-○ and Kim○-○ received money for a settlement at a personal level to bring about a lot of harmony between ○○ and Kim○-○. Thus, it cannot be said that the money received “in relation to election campaign”.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

A) From the investigative agency to this court, Kim ○ received 1,50,000 won at the expense of a meal group related to the discussion of the support declaration for Lee ○○ at the expense of the meal group related to this court, and Defendant Park 00 was called to stop the implementation of this ○○○’s support declaration. As such, this ○○ is whether ○○ is already gathering by the people of this ○○○, and the meals would not be called “n't have to go.” As such, this ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ said ○ ○ ○ ○ ○, and the Defendant Park ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

B) On February 21, 2012, at the prosecutor’s office, Defendant Park Jong-○ called a meeting to discuss this 00 support declaration by means of Kim 00, and called 10 persons from each of the last ○○ and Kim ○○ and 10 persons from each of the two. However, as of the date of the promise to communicate with the other, Defendant Park Jong-○ was to stop the support declaration without the formation of Kim ○, and 3 persons from each of the other were unable to cancel the meeting with the other. In addition, Defendant Park Jong-○ and the last O was to interview the other, but it was stated to the effect that 4-5 persons were “....”

C) In the prosecutor's office and this court, ○○, after introducing ○○ from the ○○○○○, ice was ice, but Kim○ stated that ○○ does not have to bear food to ○○○○, and ○○ said that she would not have a meeting. The ○○○ asked her room and her KimO whether she is a son’s day, and she tried to gather 50 to 60 persons from her day to her day, and the her name of supporting ○○○. Then, she was her mother to the effect that she did not have to attend the above meeting, she did not have to have to bear food to ○○○○○○○○, and she did not have to have her own food to her first day, she did not have to have her own food to her to her to her to her more than 10,500,000 won, and she did not have to her own food to her to her.

D) ○○ also stated in the prosecutorial office that he had a low conference to discuss the support declaration on February 22, 2012, 2012, but he stated to the effect that ○○ also told ○○ to the effect that she would not be helpful for himself even though she appeared from Kim○, that she would like to say that she would not have any same way.

E) Defendant Park 00 denied the fact that he received KRW 1,00,000 from Kim ○○ in the first prosecutor’s investigation, but did not reverse it from the second prosecutor’s investigation and stamp the fact that he received KRW 1,00,000 by the second prosecutor’s investigation.

F) The amount of KRW 1,00,000 is determined to be excessive when deeming that it was a drinking place for the personal compromise of several persons. It is doubtful whether or not the money received from the election campaign office Kim○○○ was used in the above room in one’s own mind. G) Even if the family Kim○○ paid KRW 1,00,000 to Defendant Park○○○ at the drinking place for driving the highest ○○ and Kim○○○, it is difficult to view that it was only for the personal appraisal in the Kim○, the largestO, and the Kim○, which could have been caused by the postponement or cancellation of the support declaration, and there is sufficient room to view that it was sufficient to view that it was to restore the relationship between the Defendant and the ○○○○, at least to prevent any disadvantageous behavior against him.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, Defendant Park ○-○ received KRW 1,000,000 from Kim○-○ in connection with the election campaign. Accordingly, Defendant Park 00 and his defense counsel’s above assertion are not accepted.

6. As to the provision of Defendant Kim○-○'s KRW 5,000,000

A. The assertion

It is true that Defendant ○○○○○ gave KRW 5,00,000 to ○○○○. However, it is time that ○○○○○ and his wife last ○○○ was a volunteer in the election campaign office of OO, and his volunteer service was for the intra-party competition. Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act do not apply to the provision of money and valuables during the intra-party competition process, and ② Defendant ○○○ was thought to demand money due to the lack of circumstances. Defendant ○○ introduced ○○ to ○○○○○○, who was responsible for this day, and paid the above money to ○○○○○ in relation to election campaign.

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence of this case, as to the assertion that the volunteer activity of Kim ○ and the largest ○○○○ is for the intra-party competition, it is true that the time at which Kim ○ and the highest ○○○○ had engaged in resource-saving activities at the election campaign office of this case was 00 and was transferred to the public through the intra-party competition. However, there is no special evidence to deem that there was no specific fact that the election campaign conducted by Kim ○ and the highest ○○○ is limited to only for the intra-party competition (at that time, Kim ○ and the highest ○○ were widely conducted election campaign against general voters), and that part of this part of the argument by the defendant Kim ○ and the defense counsel is not accepted. 2) The argument that the provision of KRW 5,00,000 is not related to the election campaign.

A) Relevant legal principles

For an election campaign under Article 97 (1) of the Public Official Election Act, the term "for an election campaign" includes not only the active purpose of allowing a favorable report for election, but also the passive purpose of evading unfavorable reports (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10451, Dec. 9, 2010). The term "in relation to an election campaign" refers to "in relation to an election campaign", "for an election campaign, the motive for matters concerning the election campaign". As seen earlier, the term "a broad concept for an election campaign" includes not only the active purpose of having a favorable report for election, but also the passive purpose of avoiding unfair reports (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2370, Jun. 27, 2006).

B) According to the evidence of this case, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) From the investigative agency to this court, Kim ○ requested Lee ○ and MaOO to demand for KRW 1,200,000 as well as KRW 4,00,00 as the cost of performing the candidate’s wife for 2 months from the beginning of March 2012, and thereafter, he/she shows the passbook in the name of 5,00,000 won in his/her own name, which includes KRW 5,00,00,000 from the last day of 2 months, and “I will bring this money to the lender.” This is a concrete and consistent statement to the effect that “The loan and 3 only 1,00,000 Korean are defective.”

(2) 피고인 김○○은 ① 검찰에서는 "이○○이 전화를 해서 김○○이 사무소에서 싸움을 하고 돈을 요구한다고 말하였다. 위 통화 당시 이○○으로부터 '선거사무소에서는 돈을 줄 수 없다'는 말을 들은 것 같기도 한데, 하여튼 속으로 '나한테 책임지라는 뜻인가 보다' 하고 생각하였다. 그래서 김○○을 만나 타일러 보고 그래도 말을 듣지 않으면 내가 김○○을 이○○에게 소개했으니 김○○에게 돈이라도 줘야겠다고 마음을 먹었다. 그 후 김○○을 만나 김○○에게 '선거철이고 하니 조용하게 하자. 자원봉사 하러 왔으면서 한 달에 2,000,000원씩 달라고 하면 되느냐'고 하면서 타일렀는데, 도저히 돈을 주지 않으면 안 될 것 같아서5) 김○○에게 5,000,000원을 주었다"는 취지로 진술하였고, ② 이 법정에서는 "이○○이 전화를 걸어 '김○○이 사무소에서 싸움을 하는 등 도움이 안 된다. 그러니 소개한 사람이 책임을 져라'라는 취지로 말하였다. 당시 이00은 무척 성질이 난 상태 같았는데, 내가 옆에 있기라도 하였으면 나를 두들겨 팰 것 같은 분위기였다. 이에 나는 한마디도 하지 못하고 그 다음날 바로 서울에서 부산으로 내려와 김○○을 만났다"는 취지로 진술하였다.

(3) ○○○ stated in the prosecutorial office that “I heard that I would demand remuneration from ○○○○ by making a phone call to ○○○○○, and that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see ○○○, and that I would not see that I would not leave ○○ to Busan and that I would not see ○○○.”

(4) Defendant Kim ○ was well aware of the fact that ○○ and ○○○○ works as an election campaign agent at the election campaign office of this○○○, and even though he was aware of what is the name of KRW 5 million demanded by Kim○○, he appears to have paid KRW 5,00,000, which is the amount demanded by Kim00, without almost little attempt to reduce it (In addition, Defendant Kim ○ does not seem to have been aware that Defendant Kim ○ was treated as an election campaign agent.)

(5) Defendant Kim○-○ was merely a member of a company of a usual level. Meanwhile, Kim○-○ appears to have been married by a male who was married by Defendant Kim○-○’s private village and was not likely to have had frequent traffic or had a common ties. However, it is doubtful whether Defendant Kim○-○ had a reason to give a lot of money, 5,000,000 won, by making it difficult for Defendant Kim○-○ to take money from his own her son to take advantage of her son’s money.

다) 앞서 본 사정들을 모두 종합하면, 당시 피고인 김○○에게는 자신이 소개한 일에 대하여 책임을 진다는 생각과 더불어 행여라도 김○○이 말썽을 부리거나 선거운동을 방해하는 등 선거에 부정적인 영향을 끼치지 못하도록 하려는 의사가 있었음을 부정하기 어렵다고 보이므로, 위 5,000,000원은 '선거운동과 관련하여' 지급된 것임을 충분히 인정할 수 있다고 할 것이다. 따라서 피고인 김○○ 및 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

7. As to Defendant Kim○-○’s defense counsel’s assertion

A. The assertion

3,086,00 won for cosmetics was paid to the seller of cosmetics in return for purchase of gifts for illegal election campaigns, and if the defendant Kim ○ received a benefit equivalent to the same amount of money, if it is collected from the above defendant, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, Defendant Kim ○-○’s defense counsel’s above assertion on a different premise is rejected, on the ground that Defendant Kim ○-○’s legal counsel’s transfer of the above KRW 3,086,00 to Y○○○○, would have received pecuniary benefits that the debtor of the cosmetic price, who is the debtor of the cosmetic price, would be exempted from his economic contribution.

Reasons for sentencing

1. At the time of each of the instant crimes, Defendant 2: (a) was elected by going to the 19th National Assembly election; (b) provided a gift set to a preliminary candidate’s status, etc. to make a contribution; (c) provided a sled gift set to reporters in Busan local media; and (d) provided money, valuables, and other benefits that are close to KRW 5,00,000 in total to Kim ○○ in relation to an election campaign.

First of all, in relation to the fact of contribution, the act of contribution is prohibited in principle in order to ensure the transparency and fairness of election in accordance with Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act, because there is a risk that the act of contribution may distort the individual's free will due to unfair economic interests in an election to be made through free decision-making by an individual, and thus, in order to ensure the transparency and fairness of election, regardless of the name, form, and period of the act of contribution.

Next, in relation to the provision of gifts to reporters, this part of the crime of providing gifts to reporters who are able to lead local public opinion at the time of election is likely to impede fair competition in the election, hinder the right choice of voters, and considering the radio wave and power of the voters, the crime is not a law, and the crime is not a law, and the number of reporters who receive gifts is also likely to be criticized for not less than six persons.

Finally, with respect to the provision of money, valuables and other benefits to Kim ○, the Public Official Election Act prohibits the public from being distorted and ultimately, in order to prevent the distortion of the public and to enhance the fairness of election by blocking the election campaign which has been considered as the high-quality illness in various elections in Korea, the public election act strictly prohibits election campaign workers, etc. who have been reported in advance, from paying a certain amount of allowances or paying compensation for actual expenses, regardless of the pretext thereof, and from providing money, valuables and other valuables in relation to election campaign regardless of the pretext thereof. The Defendant provided this to KimO under the pretext of funds to be used for illegal election campaigns for himself, and the nature of the crime is inferior and the amount of money, valuables and other valuables provided is not smaller. In addition, even though the Defendant was in the position to have a warning about the violation of the Public Official Election Act, the Defendant seems to have committed several violations of the Public Official Election Act, and even if ○○○ and Kim ○○, who committed the crime under his direction or implied consent, and the Defendant seems to have no relation with the election and strict responsibility.

Considering all the above circumstances, even though there is no criminal history against the defendant, public officials;

In light of the fact that the defendant's act of contribution has served in good faith for a long time and the other party to the defendant's act of contribution has some circumstances to take into account the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, it is judged that it is inevitable to sentence imprisonment, which is the invalidation of election, to the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. Defendant’s fixed title ○

Although the Defendant, as an election campaign manager who took overall charge of the election campaign of 00, is required to know about a high compliance spirit and a violation of the Public Official Election Act, the Defendant provided 3,086,000 won for property benefits in collusion with ○○○○ and offered ○○ Kim. This is the fact that the Defendant was offered as the price for a pro rata gift to the electorate or the electorate and thus the nature of the crime is bad, and the Defendant brought about a substantial confusion in the investigation by consistently making a false statement at an investigative agency as to the instant crime, and the benefits provided are not significant.

However, the Defendant is determined as ordered by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have not directly participated in the business of taking advantage of the cosmetics futures to the electorates, etc.; (b) there is no criminal record other than one time of fine; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after committing the instant case’s pleading process, such as age, character and conduct, and circumstances after committing the

3. Defendant Kim○-○

In collusion with this ○○○, the Defendant provided KRW 1,500,000 to Kim○○○. In light of the fact that the said money was provided for the illegal purpose of a meeting’s payment of meal expenses to discuss a declaration of support for this ○○○, the Defendant need to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the fact that it is not good to the nature of the crime, and that the amount provided is not much much.

However, the defendant was not a person who had previously engaged in political or election-related activities but a person who had a deep-friendly relationship, such as receiving a large amount of assistance from ordinary times ○○○, and ○○○ was going out of the election for the first time, and the defendant tried to help the election campaign, and there are circumstances showing that it led to the crime of this case, and there are no records of criminal punishment in light of the circumstances, other than two times of fines, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, circumstances after the crime.

4. Defendant’s gambling ○

The Defendant received KRW 1,00,000 from Kim○○ in connection with the election campaign. As seen earlier, the Public Official Election Act strictly regulates the act of receiving money or goods while restricting the offering of money or goods in connection with the election campaign and strictly regulates the act of receiving such money or goods and strictly punished for the act of violating it. In particular, the Defendant appears to have been well aware of the legislative intent and relevant provisions of the Public Official Election Act while doing so for a long time, even though he had been aware of the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act, and even if he had been aware of such a long time, he received a lot of money or goods worth KRW 1,00,00

However, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than one time prior to a fine, and the above 1,00,000 won shall be confiscated, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as above in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case.

5. Defendant Kim ○-○

The defendant provided 5,00,000 won to Kim○ in connection with the election campaign, and in light of the fact that it is a large amount, it is necessary to punish the defendant accordingly.

However, the Defendant did not appear to have given money to Kim○ because he was subject to a claim from 00 that Kim○○ caused an issue at an election campaign office and was responsible for the person who introduced him, etc., and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances of the crime. There are no particular criminal records other than a long period of suspension of execution, and there is no other criminal records other than the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime. It is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account all the factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument.

6. Defendant Kim○-○

The defendant made a contribution to the electorate, etc. for the purpose of this ○○, and received money, valuables, and other benefits corresponding to 10,000,000 won in connection with an election campaign from 00, 100,000 won, and provided 1,00,000 won in connection with an election campaign. The above amount of contribution reaches 15,00,000 won in 2,000,000 won in 15, and the amount of money, valuables, etc. received is about 10,00,000 won in 15,000 won in 2,000,000 won in 10,000 won in 10,000 won in 10,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 20

However, the decision is delivered with the order, taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., where the defendant has no record of being placed in the same criminal conduct, it appears that the former and the substance of each of the crimes of this case are true, and that the 5,000,000 won received from Kim○○○ appears to have a certain degree of character as compensation for actual expenses. The above 5,00,000 won, including the above 5,00,000 won, should be confiscated or collected.

Part of innocence (the point of contribution to the reporters of the defendant 00)

1. Summary of the facts charged

A candidate (including a person wishing to be a candidate) may not make a contribution to a person, institution, organization, or facility located outside the relevant constituency, or a person, institution, organization, or facility related to the elector. On January 16, 2012, the Defendant 00: (a) granted a gift set of 73,150 won at the market price by allowing the ○○○○○○ apartment from ○○○○○○ Dong, Busan-dong, Busan to reach the ○○○○○○, a reporter of ○○○○ apartment from ○○○○○, on January 16, 2012; and (b) granted a gift set of 18,150 won to 6 members of the political division of a press company in Busan area, such as the No. 18 to 23 of the list of crimes. Accordingly, the Defendant 00 electors provided a gift gift set of 438,000 won in total, to six members of the reporters and related persons.

2. Determination

"Person who is related with the elector" among the other party to the contribution act under Article 113 (1) of the Public Official Election Act means a person who has a certain blood-related or personal relationship with the elector in question, such as a family member, relative, or relative of the elector in question. A person who is likely to have any direct or indirect influence on the decision-making of the elector, regardless of the reason for having made such relation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7205, Nov. 16, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, the records show that Defendant ○○ was aware of the fact that he did so to six reporters as above, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the said reporters are in connection with the Busan Young-gu electorate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the facts charged in each part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because they fall under a case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the violation of each Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money and valuables to the reporters of paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the same Act,

The presiding judge and the judge;

Judges Unauthorizedd Judge

Judges or commercialia

1) In this item, "the defendant" is only called the defendant.

2) It seems that the Defendant appears to be the Defendant.

3) Preferred to in the instant case, the purchase of cosmetics futures and the settlement of payments after the train is made shall be charged with money.

It appears that there is no substantial difference in the purchase of gifts with the money, in essence, from the case of the latter.

In this case, there is no particular doubt about recognizing money and valuables as being provided.

4) Unlike the intent of Defendant Kim ○’s assertion that the Defendant’s wife’s wife was less than the Defendant’s wife’s wife, the Defendant’s brupt, if any, to the contrary.

It can be said that the situation where it is very difficult to ○○ is placed.

5) However, in the statement of Defendant Kim ○○○, an explanation about why why was to give money to Kim○-○.

It is difficult to find almost little, and on the other hand, the defendant Kim ○ shall reduce 5,000,000 won from the time when he gets off to Busan.

Each statement was made "(2) evidence records, 1020 pages).