Defendant 1 and 17 others

Both parties

Westerns (prosecutions, public trials)

Law Firm Ro-ro et al.

1. Changwon District Court Decision 2012Gohap14, 2012Gohap20 (Joint or Separatement) decided July 5, 2012, the Changwon District Court Decision 201Da14, 2012 decided July 6, 2012 (Joint or Separatement) (Joint or Separatement) decided July 6, 2012

1. All the judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year; Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 (non-indicted 2 in the judgment of the Supreme Court); 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 by fine of 2,00,000 won; Defendant 10 by fine of 1,50,000 won; and Defendant 16 (Defendant 3 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) by fine of 3,00,000 won.

3. Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 did not pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in each of the calendars for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

4. Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 17, and 1,700,000 won respectively from Defendant 3 and 15, respectively, and KRW 1,530,000 from Defendant 16 shall be collected respectively.

5. In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines against Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The Defendant did not instruct Co-Defendant 4 (Non-Party 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) to list the recruitment of election campaign workers or to manage election campaign workers and pay daily wages to Co-Defendant 4 (Non-Party 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance). In addition, the Defendant did not instruct or engage in the establishment of ○○ private placement, and even though the private placement does not constitute a similar institution under Article 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the court of first instance ordered and participated in the recruitment of election campaign workers, daily payment, and the establishment of ○ private placement, and committed an unlawful act that affected the judgment by

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 16

Although the Defendant did not receive money from Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court, the first instance court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant received money from Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The remaining Defendants

Each sentence sentenced by the court below against the above defendants (the imprisonment of 2 years, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, and 18 shall be sentenced to a fine of 500,000 won and additional collection of 1.7 million won and 1.530,000 won and additional collection of 5 million won and 1.7 million won for the defendants 3 and 15 shall be sentenced to a fine of 5,000,000 won and additional collection of 1.7 million won and additional collection of 1.7 million won against the defendants 10,000 won and 1.7 million won for the defendants 11) shall be deemed unfair.

(d) A prosecutor;

1 Each sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 is deemed unfair because all of the punishments imposed by the court below are too unfasible.

2. Ex officio determination

The judgment of the court below was made ex officio prior to the determination on the above assertion. ① The prosecutor provided money and valuables to the defendant at the court of first instance 2012 high 14, and all of the facts stated in the indictment are " around September 23, 201," and " around September 20, 201" in paragraph (1) 6 and paragraph (9) 23, and " around September 20, 201," and "after September 20, 201," "after September 24, 201," and "after September 21, 201, the court below changed the legal principles on the money and valuables provided to the defendant 200, 201, 11, 39, 200, 200, 100, 200, 200, 30,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00).

“5. Defendant 16

On October 10, 201, the Defendant received the request from Defendant 1, a co-defendant 2, who was the birth of Defendant 2, who was going to a candidate for △△△ Party, to act as a social member for the above Defendant 2, and at that time, Defendant 2, who was working as the head of the policy office, etc. in the election campaign at the above Defendant 2, was called as a social member during the election campaign period, and was to receive KRW 2.5 million in return for the election campaign.

Accordingly, on October 13, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 1.2 million from Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial in relation to an election campaign from the street in the Gyeyang-gun Development Eup around the morning.

3. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by Defendant 2 and 16

As seen above, the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case, even though there are reasons for ex officio reversal, since the above mistake of facts by the defendant 2 and 16 is still subject to examination.

A. As to Defendant 2’s assertion

The lower court also stated that the Defendant had the same reasoning as this part of the appeal, and rejected the above assertion under the title "1. Defendant 2" and "the first instance court's judgment", and compared the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court. On the other hand, it seems that Co-Defendant 4 knew that conversation between Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 was recorded at the time of meeting, and that Co-Defendant 4 did not appear to be consistent with that of Defendant 1's first instance court's first instance court's ruling regarding the amount to be paid to Co-Defendant 4, but it is not easy for Co-Defendant 1 to accurately memory Defendant 4 with the first instance court's first instance court's ruling regarding the election campaign after the lapse of several months in light of empirical rule, and that Co-Defendant 1's statement was not related to Co-Defendant 4's election campaign at the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's position and the second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance ruling ruling.

B. As to Defendant 16’s assertion

Co-defendant 1 and 4 duly adopted the judgment of the court below and stated that “Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 4 provided 10,000 won for 13 days to the society at the time of the investigation, and the rest of Defendant 1 was known to have been made.” At the time, Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 4 stated that “No. 1 and Co-defendant 4 provided 4 with the same money to Co-defendant 1 for 10,000,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 4,000,000 won for 4,000 won for 6,000 won for 10,000 won for 4,000 won for 6,000,000 won for 1,000 won for 4,000 won for 1,000 won for 6,000 won for 1,000 won for 1.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the above ground of ex officio reversal is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without omitting the determination on the remaining Defendants and the prosecutor's respective arguments on unfair sentencing except Defendant 16, and it is again decided as follows.

Defendant 2 was elected as a candidate for △△△△ Party on October 26, 2011, at the presidential election of △△△△△△, Defendant 1 was a relative member of Defendant 2. Defendant 2 was a person who served as a concurrently driver of Defendant 2 and a head of the competent tax office who manages election campaign workers. Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court was a person who served as the head of the policy office or head of the situation office at the election campaign office of Defendant 2 and served as a planned support, recruitment and management of election campaign workers.

Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court, who was sent together to Defendant 2’s election campaign from August 201 upon Defendant 1’s request, was in charge of policy planning, etc., and on September 201, 201, he recruited election campaign workers to be in charge of prior election campaign under Defendant 2’s instruction, who was the candidate for the first instance police officer, and was in charge of managing them.

On September 17, 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial constituted a non-public election campaign organization under the name of "○○ private placement (a meeting of persons who love Defendant 2)" in the so-called 7 team, where he collected about 50 election campaign members, including Defendant 11, from the restaurant of Gyeongnam Development Group (hereinafter address 2 omitted), which is operated by Nonindicted 6, an election campaign manager of the above election campaign office, and selected election campaign workers based on his letter of self-introduction, and selected them based on it. On September 20, 201, Co-defendant 4 organized a non-public election campaign organization under the name of "○○ private placement (a meeting of persons who love Defendant 2)" in the same Eup (hereinafter address 3 omitted).

1. Defendant 1

Except for the cases of offering allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the Public Official Election Act, no one shall offer, express an intention to offer, or promise to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, etc.

Nevertheless, Co-defendant 4 of the Defendant and Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial agreed to allow election campaign workers who are recruited and organized as above to act as election campaign workers from September 20, 201 to October 26, 201, which is the election day, to pay for all kinds of incidental expenses such as daily allowances, transportation expenses, oil expenses, and food expenses.

On September 20, 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial demanded a definite answer on the specific amount to be paid in return for an election campaign from some election campaign workers in the said Geum River Sports Center, around September 21, 201, and around September 21, 2011, at the said Geum River Sports Center, "I would like to pay KRW 100,000 per day on the conditions that work for the month from the following day to the election day if you want to work free of charge as a service." On September 25, 2011, Co-defendant 4 stated that "I would settle the actual cost if you will receive the receipt."

After that, Defendant and Co-Defendant 4 paid excessive expenses to election campaign workers, and needed to submit a list of the persons to be registered as election campaign workers during the official election campaign period, and as a result, Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court promised to provide money and valuables to the above election campaign workers in relation to the election campaign, on October 201, 201, to the above election campaign workers in the Frang gymnasium, Defendant and Co-Defendant 4 stated that “I will register the list of election campaign workers, one hundred thousand won per day for those who enter the list, and 90,000 won per day for those who do not enter the list.” By consenting to the election campaign workers, Defendant promised to provide money and valuables to the above election campaign workers in relation to the election campaign.

Accordingly, at around 17:00 on October 8, 201, the Defendant received the list of the election campaign workers and the amount of allowances to be paid, which he prepared by Co-Defendant 4 in the first instance court 2 and the defendant's office of "Seoul Metropolitan City Improvement Factory" (hereinafter address 4 omitted) at the office of "Seoul Metropolitan City Improvement Project," which was operated by the defendant, and divided the bags in which the defendant entered the defendant's house and brought about about 83 million won into the defendant's house, into the envelope in advance, and 170,000 won per election campaign worker (including those who registered as an election campaign worker and are not actually registered as an election campaign worker) or 1530,000 won per election campaign worker (including those who decided to act as a private uniform without being registered as an election campaign worker).

After all, the defendant ordered Co-defendant 2 and Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial to deliver the plastic bags made as above to each of them in return for the election campaign. Accordingly, Co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial and Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial from October 8, 201 to October 13, 2011, they delivered money as shown in the list of crimes (1) to 38 election campaign workers, such as Co-defendant 21 of the first instance trial who managed their respective co-defendant 2 and Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial.

Accordingly, the defendant provided money in collusion with Co-Defendant 2 and 4 in relation to the election campaign.

2. Defendant 2

(a) Establishment of similar agencies and occupation of advance election campaigns;

On September 201, 201, the Defendant directed Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial to prepare a list of names and contact numbers of the regional recruitment books, including Nonindicted 7, Defendant 11, 12, 5, and 9, which were managed by each of them.

Accordingly, Co-defendant 4 contacted Defendant 11, a recruitment book, etc., received approximately 60 election campaigners, and reported to the Defendant. The Defendant instructed Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court to hold a regular meeting with the election campaign workers in the election campaign’ election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign’s election campaign manager

On September 17, 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial, around 18:00, collected about 50 election campaigners, including Defendant 11, at the above restaurant located in Ginam Development Group (hereinafter address 2 omitted), and prepared a field of opinion with the candidate at the same place. On that spot, Co-defendant 4 considered about 20 copies of printed articles in the amount of Chapter A42 with a view to publicizing the career and advantages of the candidate, etc. to the election campaigners attending as ordered in advance by the defendant, and recovered them for security reasons, and then submitted a letter of self-introduction from the election campaign workers attending, stating their personal information, contact, knife, knife, street personnel, etc., and submitted a letter of self-introduction to each of them.

At least 19:00 on the same day, the Defendant appeared at the above restaurant, and asked the election campaignmen present at the above restaurant to 19:00 on the following day, that “I have come to the election campaign candidate at this election. It is decided how much many minutes of the election campaign will be carried out.”

Then, Co-defendant 4 analyzed the election campaign members based on the letter of self-introduction submitted as above by the defendant's order to manage the election campaign organization. On September 20, 201, Co-defendant 4 collected election campaign members from the "Gangnam-gun Development Eup" (hereinafter address 3 omitted) around September 20, 201 and classified Defendant 11, 12, 5, 9, and 12, 4, and co-defendant 21 (second-person 21 (second-person 4), among the recruitment books, as the team leader of the first instance court's team, as seven teams, under the name of the so-called "○○ private placement (title of the meeting of the person who love the defendant 2)", the public opinion and public opinion were created for election campaign which is based on the "Gangnam-gun" as well as the public opinion and public opinion were collected by the candidate for the election campaign team at any time, and reported to the public opinion and public opinion were collected by the candidate for the election campaign campaign team at any time, and the campaign team.

Co-defendant 2, while working as a defendant's driver and a letter of performance, was requested by Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial to manage more than 50 election campaign workers on his own by Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial. On October 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial, with the permission of the defendant from the first instance trial and Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial, allowed election campaign workers to engage in activities such as promotion of candidates and to manage them.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial, established an organization similar to the election organization on his behalf, other than the election organization under the Public Official Election Act, in which he wishes to be a candidate in the cultivation and reelection, and the Defendant, in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 and 2 of the first instance trial, carried out an election campaign in collusion with Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial by allowing election campaigners to publicize the candidate before October 13, 201, which is the election campaign period for the

B. The promise to provide money and goods related to the election campaign

Except for the cases of offering allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the Public Official Election Act, no one shall offer, express an intention to offer, or promise to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) from September 20, 201 to September 20, 201, had election campaigners recruited and organized as above; and (b) conspired with Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial and Defendant 1 to pay various incidental expenses, such as daily allowances, transportation expenses, oil expenses, and food expenses.

On September 20, 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court ordered Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court to answer the specific amount of money to be paid in return for an election campaign from some election campaign workers at the time of the first meeting of "○ private placement" in the said Geum River Sports Center, and reported it to the defendant at the above election campaign office around the same day. Defendant 2 instructed Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court that "I will give KRW 100,000 per day on a daily basis for working conditions until one election day and give him the receipt, such as food expenses and oil value."

On September 21, 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial, on the following day, ordered the election campaign workers to pay KRW 100,000 per day to the election campaign workers as ordered by the defendant, as stated in the above gold gymnasium around September 21, 201, "........... the cost of the activities, such as the value of the braille and the cost of meals, transportation, oil, and rain, will be settled at the actual cost if the receipt is received......" The election campaign workers agreed to this.

At that time, Defendant 1 presented the receipt, etc. to Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial, and Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial presented the receipt, etc. to Defendant 1 through the team leader, and then, Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial presented the receipt, such as oil expenses, etc. presented by the election campaign team leader, and settled it to the election campaign workers.

During that period, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court spent excessive expenses to election campaign workers, and required to submit a list of persons to be registered as election campaign workers during the official election campaign period, Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 to adjust daily allowances of election campaign workers. According to the result, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance court agreed on the following: “In order to submit a list of election campaign workers to the election campaign commission, 10,000 won per day for those who enter the list, 10,000 won per day for those who enter the list, and 90,000 won per day for those who do not enter the list.”

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Co-Defendant 4 and Defendant 1 in order to provide money in relation to the election campaign.

3. Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18;

Except for the cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the Public Official Election Act, no one shall receive money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, or accept the expression of an intention to provide such benefits.

On September 201, 201, the Defendants participated in the election campaign zone and participated in so-called "○ private placement" as described in subparagraph 2-A (a) of Article 2 for Defendant 2's election campaign, which took place as a candidate for △△△△ Party, and became a member of the non-official election campaign organization who pretended to volunteer. On September 20, 201, the Defendants promised to pay for election campaign fees from Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial at the said Geum River Sports Center around September 20, 201, and then came to receive a promise from Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial to October 12, 201 prior to the period of the official election campaign from around the time to October 12, 2011, the Defendants took detailed meetings for election campaign by gathering them in the A Pak Sports Center every day with the guidance of Defendant 11, return to an unspecified candidate, such as the restaurant, fryter, soup, and so on.

In relation to the above election campaign, the Defendants received money and valuables from Co-Defendant 4 or Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance trial as shown in the list of crimes (3) from October 1, 2011 to November 11 of the same month.

4. Defendant 16

On October 10, 201, the Defendant received the request from Defendant 1, a co-defendant 2, who was the birth of Defendant 2, who was going to a candidate for △△△ Party, to act as a social member for the above Defendant 2, and at that time, Defendant 2, who was working as the head of the policy office, etc. in the election campaign at the above Defendant 2, was called as a social member during the election campaign period, and was to receive KRW 2.5 million in return for the election campaign.

Accordingly, on October 13, 201, the Defendant received KRW 1.2 million in relation to the election campaign from Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial in the same literature distance in the Gyeyang-gun Development Eup around the morning at around October 13, 201.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Each trial statement of the defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 12;

1. The witness's statement in each trial in co-defendant 4 and 2 of the first instance court;

1. Defendant 4, 2, Nonindicted 8, Co-defendant 5, 6, 7, 28, 8, 9, 12, 21, 22, 26, 24, 25, 11, 34, and 23 of the first instance trial by the witness

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol regarding Defendant 2;

1. 진술서, 이력서, 자원봉사자 명단, 팀별 자원봉사자 명단, 다이어리, 유세 유급 자봉 인력현황표, 차용증, 압수조서, 각 압수목록, 사진, 수사보고(피고인 1이 사용한 휴대전화에 대한) 수사협조 의뢰 및 회신, 현장사진, 각 압수조서(임의제출), 수사보고(통화내역 자료 첨부), 통화내역, 수사보고(피고인 1의 차량정비소 내 대책회의 관련), 차적조회 내용, 기사, 수사보고(피의자 피고인 14 휴대전화기 디지털 증거분석에 대한), 디지털 증거분석 결과, 각 CD, 발신내역 정리, 디지털 증거분석 결과 회신(제1심 공동피고인 22, 피고인 14), 디지털 증거분석 결과 회신(피고인 1, 제1심 공동피고인 2), 수사보고(피고인 2, ◎실장이 사용한 휴대전화), 수사보고(진술회피에 대한), 수사보고(진술거부 회유에 대한), 수사보고(디지털 증거분석에 사용된 휴대전화에 대한), 압수조서(현장), 녹음녹화접견현황 및 녹음녹취파일 CD송부, 디지털 증거분석결과 회신(하드디스크), 발신내역 정리, 화상자료, 수사보고(일반), 압수물 사본, 디지털 증거분석결과 보고서, 각 수사보고(통화내역 자료첨부에 대한), 회신 및 CD, 통화내역 발췌정리, 추송서, 수사보고(압수수색영장 집행결과), 제1심 공동피고인 4, 피고인 2 통화내역, 각 피고인 1, 2 통화내역, 수사보고(제1심 공동피고인 4 통화내역 분석), 각 제1심 공동피고인 2 발신 제1심 공동피고인 4 수신, 수사보고(피고인 2 통화내역 분석), 2012. 3.경 통화내역 및 CD, 수사보고(제1심 공동피고인 4 휴대전화 디지털 증거분석), 사진, 디지털 증거분석결과서, 통화내역, 전화번호부 등 복원결과, 통화내용보고(공소외 9), (수사보고-휴대전화기 추가 디지털 증거분석에 대한), 디지털 증거분석 결과 회신, 디지털 증거분석 결과보고서, CD(디지털 증거분석 자료 저장), 수사보고서(디지털 증거분석 파일 CD 첨부), 수사보고서(디지털 증거분석 결과 주요내용 첨부)

【No. 3 Facts at the Time of Sale】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18;

1. The witness's statement in each trial in co-defendant 4 and 2 of the first instance court;

1. Each of the original judgments rendered by Non-Indicted 10, Co-defendant 2, and 4

1. Examination protocol of examination of co-defendant 4 in the first instance court;

1. The main contents of each CD, seizure report (including the submission of the report), CD, investigation report (as to attaching data on the contents of currency), CD, investigation report (as to attaching data on the contents of currency), CD, investigation report (as to attaching data on the contents of currency), arrangement of contents of currency, investigation report (as a result of execution of a search and seizure warrant), investigation report (as to co-defendant 4 mobile phone digital evidence analysis), photograph, digital evidence analysis report, telephone details, telephone number book, etc. restoration results, investigation report (as to Co-defendant 23 of the first instance trial trial trial), investigation report (as to telephone conversations report), investigation report (as to the election campaign report and the location of the base station), investigation report (as to the confirmation of the details of the telephone conversations and the result of confirmation of the decision and disposition of the defendant 10), digital evidence analysis report, CD (storage of digital evidence analysis data), investigation report (as to attaching digital evidence analysis data), investigation report (as a result of digital evidence analysis report), investigation report (as to attachment

[No. 4]

1. Legal statement of co-defendant 4 in the first instance trial;

1. Co-defendant 34's oral statement in the court of first instance

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of co-defendant 4 and 34 in the first instance trial;

1. The prosecutor's statement of co-defendant 4 in the first instance court;

1. A report on investigation (for attaching data on the details of currency);

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

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

B. Defendant 2: Articles 255(1)13 and 89(1) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a similar institution, the selection of imprisonment), Article 254(2) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, an advance election campaign, the selection of imprisonment), Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, the promise to provide money and valuables related to election campaign, the selection of imprisonment), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, the establishment of a similar

C. The remaining Defendants: Each of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 2012); Article 230(1)5 and 4 of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 11374, Feb. 29, 201; Defendant 11, 12, and 13, respectively, collectively, choose each of the fines)

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravated Punishment for Defendants 2)

3. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (in respect of the remaining Defendants except the defendants 1 and 2, excluding the defendants 1 and 2)

4. Additional collection:

The proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act (as to the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 and 2)

5. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (In respect of the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 and 2, etc.)

1. Defendant 1

The crime of this case is very poor in light of the fact that the money and valuables provided to 38 members of the election campaign to provide a total of 63 million won in connection with the election campaign is a large amount, which is planned and organized, and further, the crime of this case is likely to be criticized in that it was caused by illegal election campaigns that occurred in the course of the previous election for the head of the Gun, which occurred in the course of the new election for the head of the Gun.

However, the money and valuables in this case are not provided to the voters, but provided to election campaigners, and the defendant has committed the crime in this case, and the defendant has divided his errors, and the defendant has no same criminal records, and the motive, means and methods of the crime in this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc. shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, including the motive

2. Defendant 2

The Defendant’s crime of this case, other than the election organization under the Public Official Election Act, establishes a “private placement” which is similar organization, and conducts a prior election campaign by having election campaign workers publicize himself prior to the election campaign period, and by having them offer money and goods to election campaign workers in connection with the election campaign. In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in a planned, organized, and considerable period, the nature of the crime is very poor. Nevertheless, the Defendant denied all of the crime of this case up to the trial, and only took responsibility for the crime of this case to Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4, who is his own partner and co-defendant 4, and did not recognize his mistake. As seen earlier, the crime of this case was committed in the process of re-election due to the previous illegal election. In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in the process of a re-election due to the previous illegal election, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the nature and contents of the private placement, and the promise to provide the money and valuables of this case are limited to election campaigners who are not the right holder, and the defendant has served as a public official with integrity over the past 30 years, and the motive, means and methods of the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc. shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, including the motive

3. The remaining Defendants

The crime of this case is provided with money and valuables in relation to the election, which is in violation of the Public Official Election Act to promote the establishment of a fair and clean election system, which is the basis of democratic politics, and thus, the liability for such crime is not less and less.

However, according to the fact that the amount of money and valuables provided to the Defendants is not much significant, the money and valuables provided to the Defendants were made on the basis of compensation for actual expenses or consolation level for election campaign, and the Defendants appear to have committed the crime of this case due to the difficulty of family appearance; Defendant 9, 11, and 12 were led to the confession of the crime of this case; the confession of the crime of this case was made by all the Defendants; there was no criminal records of the same kind of crime; all the Defendants were led to the absence of criminal records; the remaining Defendants except Defendant 10, 16 had no criminal records or minor fines, and there was no records of punishment other than primary or minor fines; and all of the sentencing conditions in the arguments of this case including the age, character and conduct of the Defendants and family environment.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Except for the cases of offering allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the Public Official Election Act, no one shall offer, express an intention to offer, or promise to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, etc.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance trial agreed to allow election campaigners in charge of advance election campaign organized by Defendant 2 to act as election campaign workers from September 20, 201 to October 26, 201, which is the election day, to pay for all kinds of incidental expenses such as daily allowances, transportation expenses, oil expenses, and food expenses.

On September 20, 201, Co-defendant 4 of the first instance trial demanded a definite answer on the specific amount to be paid in return for an election campaign from some election campaign workers in the said Geum River Sports Center, around September 21, 201, and around September 21, 2011, at the said Geum River Sports Center, "I would like to pay KRW 100,000 per day on the conditions that work for the month from the following day to the election day if you want to work free of charge as a service." On September 25, 2011, Co-defendant 4 stated that "I would settle the actual cost if you will receive the receipt."

After that, Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4 paid excessive expenses to election campaign workers, and there is a need to submit a list of persons to be registered as election campaign workers during the official election campaign period. Accordingly, Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court decided to adjust daily allowances, and as a result, Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court agreed to the effect that, on October 201, 201, Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court registered the list of election campaign workers to the election campaign workers in the above gold gymnasium, Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4 of the first instance court stated that, on a daily basis, those who enter the list will make KRW 100,000 per day to those who did not enter the list, and

Accordingly, Defendant 1 promised to provide money in return for the election campaign in collusion with Defendant 2 and Co-Defendant 4 in sequence.

2. Determination

As seen earlier, the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act under the Public Official Election Act is incorporated into the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act under the Public Official Election Act by offering money and goods, and only the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act under the Public Official Election Act is established by offering money and goods, and it is not established separately. Thus, the above facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it does not constitute a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act under the Public Official Election Act by offering money and goods, the

[Attachment]

Judges Heung-heung et al. (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The above place is a base station at the time when the defendant made the above telephone communications.