(영문) 서울고등법원 2013. 9. 16. 선고 2011노3260 판결

However, with respect to Defendant 2, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 1’s KRW 883,02,00, and KRW 134,532,040 from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

Reasons

I. Summary of the grounds for appeal

1. A prosecutor;

A. As to Defendant 1

공소외 1의 검찰 진술의 신빙성이 강력하게 추단되고, 각종 증거에 의하여 ㉠ 공소외 1이 3번에 걸쳐 9억 원 상당을 조성하여 피고인 1에게 전달하기 위해 ○○건영 주식회사(이하 ‘○○건영’이라고 한다)를 출발한 사실, ㉡ 피고인 1이 공소외 1에게 2억 원을 반환한 사실, ㉢ 이 사건 수사 착수 1년 전에 공소외 1이 이미 돌려받은 2억 원 외 추가로 피고인 1에게 3억 원을 요구한 사실, ㉣ 피고인 1의 동생 공소외 6이 피고인 1로부터 이 사건 1억 원 권 수표를 교부받아 사용한 사실, ㉤ 피고인 1 부부의 계좌에 출처불명의 현금 2억 4,100만 원이 입금되고, 출처 불명의 1만 2,772달러를 피고인 1의 동생인 공소외 6, 공소외 10이 피고인 1의 아들 유학경비로 송금 내지 입금한 사실 등 공소사실과 간격이 극히 좁아 공소사실을 강력하게 추인할 수 있는 간접사실들이 충분히 인정될 뿐만 아니라 이러한 간접사실들은 피고인 1에게 9억 원을 교부하였다는 직접증거인 공소외 1의 검찰 진술과 완전히 일치하고 어떠한 모순점도 발견되지 아니하며, 더 나아가 공소외 1이 피고인 1에게 수억 원의 정치자금을 제공할만한 친분관계가 있었고, 정치자금을 제공할만한 동기나 이유도 있었다는 점이 충분히 입증되었으며, 금품을 제공한 장소나 방법에 관한 공소외 1의 검찰 진술에 객관적 합리성을 상실하였다고 볼만한 상당한 이유가 발견되지 않는다. 따라서 위 사실 및 사정들을 종합하면 피고인 1에 대한 이 사건 공소사실을 충분히 유죄로 인정할 수 있음에도 원심은 이와 달리 판단하였다.

B. As to Defendant 2

(i)misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

㈎ 현금 4,000만 원 수수 관련 무죄 부분

The court below rejected the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement and the list of claims recovery, and judged that there is insufficient evidence to this part of the facts charged, but it did not sufficiently examine other objective data to support the credibility of the above evidence and related parties’ statement, and it can be found guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 in full view of the above evidence.

㈏ 버스 지원 관련 무죄 부분

1) The part concerning the provision of buses related to the publishing commemorative association

Although it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 received buses free of charge from Nonindicted 1 in relation to Defendant 1’s publishing commemorative meeting, as in this part of the facts charged, because Nonindicted 1 and ○○○○ employees were present at Defendant 1’s publishing commemorative meeting not based on their voluntary intent but upon Defendant 2’s request, Defendant 1’s letter, Defendant 1’s letter, Defendant 2, as in this part of the facts charged, received the buses free of charge and received pecuniary benefits.

2) The portion concerning the provision of buses related to the Seoul Metropolitan area tax

Although Defendant 2’s receipt of Nonindicted Party 1’s bus free of charge in the Seoul Metropolitan Area is for Defendant 1’s indirect political activities and can be seen as receipt of political funds, the lower court determined otherwise.

【Unjustifiable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court against Defendant 2 (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection of KRW 94,532,040) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Defendant 2

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the money provided by Nonindicted Party 1 to Defendant 2 and credit cards and automobiles, Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to have received political funds on his own interest and cannot be the subject of violation of the Political Funds Act, including the money provided by Nonindicted Party 1 to Defendant 2, as well as the money provided by Nonindicted Party 1 to Defendant 2.

⑵ 국회의원 피고인 1의 ☆☆☆☆☆ 지역구 당원협의회 사무실(이하 ‘지역구 사무실’이라고 한다) 운영을 지원하기 위하여 금품 등을 제공하였다는 공소외 1의 검찰 진술은 신빙성이 없다.

Defendant 2 was in a business partnership with Nonindicted Party 1 in relation to the business of the long-term care hospital for the aged.

x) The lower court determined that the Non-Indicted 5’s statement that the franchiseer car offered to Defendant 2 (hereinafter “the instant car”) was returned on February 28, 2008 was inadmissible, or the credibility of the car was diminished, based on this, the time for the return of the car.

(v) Even though there is no reason to assume the expenses for the transportation of voluntary applicants at the local office of the local area, and Defendant 1 did not systematically mobilize the personnel in the local basin, the lower court determined that the said bus provision constituted the receipt of political funds on the ground that the bus expenses as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment should have been borne by the local office of the local area.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court against Defendant 2 is too unreasonable.

Ⅱ Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal No. 1

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant

(a) Acceptance of a primary political fund;

On March 2007, the Defendant heard the speech that “The amount of KRW 300 million will be supported by the expenses for the competition of the vessels” from Nonindicted Party 1, while accepting the speech that “The amount of KRW 100 million will be considered as USD 100,00,000.”

Accordingly, on March 30, 2007, Nonindicted Party 1 prepared a cashier's check on KRW 50,000,000, cash KRW 150,000, face value KRW 100,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000, which was exchanged in the name of five employees of ○○○ Construction on the basis of the five titles, and set

Accordingly, during ○○ Construction Office from March 31, 2007 to April 2007, Non-Indicted 1 entered cash and USD 1 into a household-to-door (hereinafter referred to as a "grogate") for travel purchased in advance. The KRW 100 million check was put into a car-to-house bag, and the above grogate was notified by the Defendant of the vehicle traffic and human resources in the vicinity of the above apartment complex as the first line. After the Defendant's vehicle that arrived first and was waiting to sit on the driver's seat, Non-Indicted 1 set up the above grogate on the back of the Defendant's vehicle-to-face for travel. The Defendant immediately drive his own car and received KRW 500,500,000 by cash and check, and received KRW 250,000,000 by giving and receiving the check.

(b) Acceptance of secondary political funds; and

On April 30, 2007, the Defendant agreed to the contact with Nonindicted Party 1 to additionally subsidize the competition cost. On April 30, 2007, Nonindicted Party 1 prepared KRW 174,000,000 and KRW 130,000,000 in cash exchanged by distributed under the name of 14 employees of ○○ Construction on April 30, 2007, and decided on the date of communication to the Defendant.

Accordingly, during the period from April 30, 2007 to May 2007, Nonindicted Party 1 entered the ○○ Construction Office in the ○○○○○, 170,000 US dollars and cash KRW 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in advance, as seen in the above A. After being driven by the prior method, it was loaded on one’s own car and parked as the apartment building of the said Pungdong-dong, Pungdong, and then, he was driven by the said apartment house (defluence omitted) to the front door door door of the Defendant’s house, and the Defendant received KRW 174,00,000 and KRW 130,000,000 in cash from the Defendant.

In August 2007, the Defendant agreed to the contact with Nonindicted 1 to additionally subsidize the costs of racing, and Nonindicted 1 agreed to the contact between August 17, 2008 and August 28, 2007, the Nonindicted 1 set up a KRW 103,500 US dollars and KRW 200 million exchanged in the name of ○○ Construction Employees from August 17, 200 to August 28, 200, and made the contact to the Defendant and set the date of delivery.

Accordingly, during the period from August 29, 2007 to September 2007, Nonindicted Party 1 was placed in the ○○○ Construction Office in the manner described in the above B B, and was loaded in one’s own car and parked in the same manner by driving it as the above Pungdong Pungdong’s apartment with a prior purchase of USD 100,500 and KRW 200,000,000, and then, the said gllllllllllllll was sent to the front door door door of the house entrance of the above defendant’s apartment (defluence omitted), and the defendant received USD 103,50,000 and KRW 20,000,00.

As a result, the Defendant received 480,000,000 won in cash, 100,000 won cashier's checks, 327,500 US dollars from Non-Indicted 1 to 3 times in a way not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

2. The main text of the original judgment 2)

The court below decided that the prosecution of this case abused the right of prosecution discretion or did not infringe the defendant's right of defense on the grounds that the indictment of this case abused the right of prosecution discretion or the facts charged were unspecified, and there was a direct evidence to support the defendant's account, and that the non-indicted 1's statement was made in the prosecutor's office and the court of the court below as evidence to reinforce the non-indicted 1's prosecutor's statement. ① The list of collection of claims, the details of entertainment expenses, the details of the collection of claims, the three books, the details of financing and exchange, the ④ the details of the purchase of capital and the date of the trial, the non-indicted 1's cell phone restoration, and the circumstances (indirect facts) which can prove the defendant's fact that the non-indicted 1 returned KRW 200 million from the defendant, ② the fact that the non-indicted 6 used the 100 million won check, ③ the cash account identifying the source of the defendant's account, ⑤ the fact that the non-indicted 1 planned to provide political funds, ⑤ although there was no credibility, the defendant's statement.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the prosecution of this case abused the discretionary power of prosecution or did not infringe the right of defense because the facts charged are unspecified is justified. The court below's judgment is reasonable, and it is examined whether the judgment of the court below is appropriate individually for each of the following items, and whether the facts charged of this case against the defendant can be recognized based on this

3. The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutorial statement

A. Summary of the judgment of the court below on this part

With respect to the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement, the court below rejected the following points in light of the following circumstances: (a) Non-Indicted 1’s statement made in the court below, which stated that “Non-Indicted 1 lent KRW 900 million created over three occasions to Defendant 2, or delivered it to Non-Indicted 8 and 9 to use it as expenses for street funds related to the order for the establishment of the dedicated to the order for the establishment of the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the grant of the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the grant of the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the statement by the prosecution; (b) there is any motive for Non-Indicted 1 to make a false statement at the prosecutor’s office; (c) there is any question about the pro rata relationship between Non-Indicted 1 and the Defendant; and (5) the money and valuables points on the place and method of the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the statement;

(1) The motive for Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement

㈎ 공소외 1이 3억 원의 반환을 요구하면서 피고인 측을 협박하는 듯한 정황도 보이고, 피고인 측이 자신을 도와주지 않은 것에 대해 서운한 감정을 가지고 있음도 알 수 있으며, 이 사건 폭로를 정치적으로 이용하여 자신의 사업상 이익을 얻을 것을 도모하는 듯한 정황도 보이는데, 이러한 정황은 공소외 1이 피고인 측에 대하여 악의를 가지고 허위 과장 진술을 할 가능성을 높이는 요소로 볼 여지가 있다.

㈏ 다른 여러 가지 동기들이 복합적으로 작용하여 공소외 1이 객관적인 자료에 기초하여 진술을 하되, 자료에 의해 확인할 수 없는 부분에 있어서 허위 과장 진술을 할 가능성을 배제할 수는 없다. 공소외 1이 자금조성 내역과 채권회수목록, 휴대전화 저장내역 등을 기초로 하여 자금전달 과정 및 상대방 등에 관하여 허위 과장 진술을 하였을 가능성도 충분히 있다.

㈐ 공소외 1이 검찰 진술을 하게 된 중요한 이유 중의 하나는 공소외 5 등에게 복수를 하고 빼앗긴 회사를 되찾는 데 있었던 것으로 보인다.

㈑ 추가기소의 두려움 또한 공소외 1의 검찰 진술의 하나의 동기였던 것으로 보인다. 공소외 1이 회사의 자금으로 달러와 현금 9억 원을 조성하여 사용한 것이 분명한 사실인 이상, 만일 검찰이 원하는 답변을 하지 아니하는 경우 위 9억 원 조성 부분에 관하여 횡령으로 문제가 될 소지가 있다고 판단하였던 것으로 보인다. 이러한 두려움 또한 공소외 1이 검찰의 의도에 영합하여 허위의 진술을 할 가능성을 높이는 한 요인이 될 수 있다.

㈒ 공소외 1이 검찰에 협조하는 진술을 하게 된 데에는 공소외 7과의 면담이 결정적인 계기가 된 것으로 보이는데, 공소외 7은 공소외 1과의 면담 과정에서 공소외 1에게 수사에 협조하면 가석방 등의 이익이 있을 것이라는 취지로 회유한 사실이 있다.

Dol Points related to the friendly relationship between Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendant

㈎ 공소외 1의 검찰 진술과 같이 피고인이 자신의 아파트에서 은밀하게 공소외 1을 만나 불법정치자금 수수에 관한 논의를 하고, 그 자리에서 공소외 1에게 1억 원은 달러로 해달라고까지 부탁하였으며, 현금과 달러로 3억 원이 들어 있는 캐리어를 세 차례에 걸쳐 자신의 아파트 부근 도로 또는 자신의 아파트 내에서 은밀하게 제공받았다는 주장이 신빙성이 있으려면, 피고인과 공소외 1 사이에 위와 같은 행동이 가능할 정도의 친분관계가 있다는 점에 대한 어느 정도의 근거가 제시되어야만 한다.

㈏ 공소외 1이 피고인에게 ◁◁메트로폴리스 501호를 시세보다 저렴하게 임대한 사실은 인정되나, 당시 ◁◁메트로폴리스 건물은 공실이 많아 공소외 1이 관리비 문제 등으로 고민하고 있었는바, 이에 비추어 볼 때 공소외 1이 피고인에게 특별한 혜택을 준 것이라고 단정할 수 없다.

㈐ 피고인과 공소외 1이 같은 ▷▷ ▷씨 종친이라고 하더라도 위 사무실 임대 이전에는 특별한 친분이나 교류가 없었다.

㈑ 공소외 1이 피고인의 집 가구 설치 등과 관련하여 피고인이 없을 때 피고인의 집을 한 번 방문하였다는 사정을 들어 공소외 1과 피고인이 특별한 친분 관계가 있다고 단정하기는 어렵다.

㈒ 공소외 1은 검찰 조사 당시 2007. 4.~5.경 또는 2007. 5.~6.경에 한우예찬 또는 ▒▒▒에서 피고인의 주선으로 ◎◎◎교회의 공소외 11 목사와 만나고자 하였으나 성사되지 못한 후에 피고인, 피고인 2와 함께 식사를 한 사실이 있다고 진술하였으나, 공소외 9는 당시 피고인 2의 연락으로 ▒▒▒ 앞에서 대기하기는 했지만 식사자리에 참석하지 못하였다고 진술하였고, 공소외 11 목사와 이미 식사를 마친 피고인이 공소외 1과 다시 식사를 한다는 것도 납득하기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 공소외 1의 위 식사자리와 관련된 진술 부분은 정확하지 않은 기억을 근거로 자신과 피고인과의 관계를 과장한 진술이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다.

㈓ 공소외 1이 피고인의 아파트 인테리어 공사를 담당하기는 하였으나, 공소외 1의 검찰 진술에 의하더라도 공소외 1이 피고인 아파트 인테리어 공사에 관여하게 된 것은 피고인이 아니라 피고인 2의 요청에 의한 것이었다.

㈔ 2005. 6. 28. 주택공사 협력업체 등록 부탁, 2006. 4. 1. 한서대 증·개축 공사 관련 수주 부탁, □□□그룹 공소외 4 회장 만남 주선과 관련한 일은 모두 피고인 2가 행한 것으로 보인다.

㈕ 피고인 2가 공소외 1을 추천하였기 때문에 공소외 1이 2006. 12. 20. 총리공관 만찬에 초대된 것이라는 피고인 2의 원심법정 진술을 배척하고, 공소외 1, 피고인의 친분관계에 의해 위 만찬 자리가 만들어진 것으로 보기는 어렵다.

㈖ 피고인이 문화재지표조사와 관련하여 ♤♤♤청장을 소개해주어 ◎◎◎교회 공사에 도움을 준 것은 같은 교회에 다니는 공소외 11 목사와의 관계에서 이루어진 것이고 ○○건영은 이와는 관련이 없었던 것으로 보인다.

The substantial part of the relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, as claimed by the Prosecutor, is reasonable to regard the relationship between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 1 as the relationship between the Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 1. On the grounds that there is a considerable relationship between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 1, the argument that there is a considerable relationship between the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 is inconsistent with the logic.

㈘ 같은 ▷씨 종친으로서 2004. 5. 12. 피고인에게 자신의 건물을 임대하게 된 것을 계기로 ▷씨 종친회 회장인 자신의 부친과 함께 한 차례 피고인으로부터 식사대접을 받았고, 그 이후 3년 가까이 특별한 교류가 없다가 피고인 2의 호의로 2006. 12. 20. 총리공관 만찬에 공소외 4, 공소외 12와 함께 초대되었으며, 2007. 3.경 피고인 2의 부탁으로 피고인의 집 인테리어 공사를 담당하게 되었다는 정도의 친분관계를 근거로 공소외 1이 피고인의 집에 직접 찾아가서 피고인을 일대일로 만난 다음 정치자금을 제공하겠다는 제의를 할 수 있을 것인지 의문이다.

ally, the point of question on the mobile phone entry time

In order to establish the facts charged of this case, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the prosecutor made a promise on the date and place to deliver money and valuables by directly communicating the Defendant’s mobile phone at each time of disclosure. Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that, on the date indicated in the facts charged of this case, Nonindicted Party 1 became aware of the Defendant’s mobile phone number at the time of investigation by the prosecution, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that, in light of the following circumstances, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that, on March 2007, Nonindicted Party 1 came to know of Defendant 1’s mobile phone number at the time of investigation by the prosecution, Defendant 2 had known of Defendant 1’s mobile phone number at the time of the investigation, and that, on the other hand, he made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted Party 13H was stored in the Defendant’s cell phone number at around 207.”

㈎ 공소외 1이 검찰에 임의 제출한 자신의 휴대전화는 2007. 6.말~7.경 출시된 삼성 SCH-S480 기종이다. 그리고 위 휴대전화의 복구내역에 따르면 약 380여개의 전화번호가 2007. 7. 20. 13:40을 전후하여 수 분 사이에 입력된 것으로 나타나 이때 전에 사용하던 전화의 전화번호부를 기계적인 방법으로 이전한 것으로 보이는데 공소외 1의 휴대전화에 피고인의 전화번호인 ‘공소외 13H’라는 이름의 전화번호는 2007. 8. 21. 입력된 것으로 나타나고 있고 이는 결국 공소외 1이 종전에 사용하던 휴대전화에는 피고인의 전화번호가 입력되어 있지 않았고, 공소외 1이 휴대전화를 변경한 이후 2007. 8. 21.에 비로소 피고인의 전화번호가 입력되었다는 것을 의미한다. 즉, 공소외 1의 검찰 진술에 의하면 공소외 1이 처음 정치자금제공 제의를 하기 위하여 피고인에게 전화를 하여 피고인의 집을 방문할 일시에 관하여 약속을 하였다는 시점은 2007. 3.경이고, 그 무렵 피고인의 휴대전화번호를 알고 자신의 휴대전화에 이를 입력하였다는 것인바, 공소외 1의 휴대전화에 피고인의 휴대전화번호 입력일이 2007. 8. 21.로 되어 있는 사실은, 공소외 1이 피고인의 휴대전화로 먼저 전화하여 약속을 정하고 금품을 전달하였다는 주장의 전제를 허물어뜨리는 반대사실이다.

㈏ 검사는, 공소외 1이 2007. 8. 21. 이전에도 피고인과 접촉하였고, 피고인을 알고 지낸 무수히 많은 정황들이 있는데, 휴대전화 복구기록에 피고인의 휴대전화번호 입력일이 2007. 8. 21.로 되어 있다는 이유 하나만으로 공소외 1과 피고인이 그 이전에는 통화한 사실이 없었다고 단정할 수 없다고 주장하나, 검사가 공소외 1과 피고인과의 친분관계의 근거로 주장하는 사실관계는 실제로는 공소외 1과 피고인 2와의 친분관계로 판단되고, 이러한 사실관계가 공소외 1과 피고인이 직접 휴대전화로 연락하였음을 추단하게 하는 사실관계라고 볼 수는 없다.

㈐ 앞서 본 바와 같이 공소외 1이 검찰 수사 당시 피고인의 휴대전화번호를 알게 된 직후에 이를 저장하였음을 전제로 진술하였던 점, 공소외 1의 입장에서는 주관적으로 매우 소중했을 피고인의 휴대전화번호를 처음 알게 된 시점으로부터 무려 6개월 가량이 경과한 후에, 그리고 금품 전달을 위해 피고인과 수차례나 통화를 한 이후에 저장한다는 것은 이해하기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 공소외 1이 피고인 1의 휴대전화번호를 입력하지 않고 메모 등을 보고 통화하였거나 암기하여 통화했을 가능성도 생각하기 어렵다.

㈑ 검사는 공소외 1이 피고인의 실명으로 전화번호를 저장했다가 2007. 8. 21. 그 이름만 ‘공소외 13H'로 변경 입력했을 가능성이 있다는 주장도 하나, 공소외 1이 최초 금품제공 시점으로부터 한참 후에서야 갑자기 피고인의 실명을 알리지 않기 위해 휴대전화상 이름을 가명으로 변경했다는 것 역시 납득하기 어렵다.

x) the place and method of the primary grant; and

There are the following questions concerning the place and method of delivery of the first money and valuables according to Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement, which is a basis for lowering the credibility of Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement.

㈎ 공소외 1은 검찰에서 “피고인으로부터 전화상으로 아파트 단지 밑의 길(편도 1차로인 구 도로, 이하 ’이 사건 구 도로‘라고 한다)로 오라는 말을 듣고 위 길로 갔더니 그곳에 승용차가 한 대 정차해 있어 직감적으로 위 승용차가 피고인의 차라는 것을 알아보았고 가까이 다가가 운전석에 여자가 앉아있는 것이 보여 피고인의 차라는 것을 확신한 후 위 승용차의 2, 3m 뒤에 자신의 승용차를 정차시키고 피고인의 승용차 조수석 뒷자리에 캐리어 가방을 옮겨주었다.”라고 진술하였다.

㈏ 그런데 공소외 1은 이 사건 이전에 피고인의 승용차를 본 적이 없었다고 진술하였는바, 이 사건 구 도로에 정차되어 있는 승용차가 피고인의 승용차라는 사실을 어떻게 알고 그 승용차의 약 2~3m 뒤에 자신의 승용차를 정차시켰던 것인지 의문이다. 또한 공소외 1이 지목한 공여 장소를 살펴보면 이 사건 구 도로가 굽어 있어 정차한 차량 바로 뒤에 도착하더라도 정차한 차량 앞에 다른 차가 정차해있는지 알 수 없는 상황이었음에도 공소외 1이 어떻게 이 사건 구 도로상에 차량이 한대만 주차되어 있었다고 단정적으로 말할 수 있는지 의문이다.

㈐ 원심법원의 현장검증 결과에 의하면 운전자가 선팅이 되어 있는 차량의 운전석에 탑승하고 있는 경우 뒤 차량의 운전자로서는 앞 차량의 뒤에 정차하기 전에는 물론 3m 정도 뒤에 정차한 후에도 곧바로 운전석에 앉은 사람의 성별을 확인하는 것이 쉽지 않은 것으로 보였던바, 당시 공소외 1이 그렇게 쉽게 피고인의 차량임을 식별할 수 있었을지도 의문이다.

㈑ 공소외 1 검찰 진술처럼 피고인이 전화통화로 아파트 앞에 오면 연락달라고 하였다면 통상적으로는 아파트 내에서 기다리다가 그 부근에 사람이 와서 연락을 하면 그 시간에 맞추어 행동을 하려고 하는 상황에서 하는 말이라고 봄이 상당한데, 공소외 1의 위 진술에 의하면, 피고인이 아파트가 아닌 이 사건 구 도로에서 공소외 1을 기다리고 있었다는 것이어서 위와 같은 말은 객관적인 상황과 잘 부합하지 않는다.

㈒ 이 부분 공여 장소는, 주변 토지가 대부분 농지로 사용 중이고, 농지와 도로 사이에 시야를 가릴 만한 구조물이나 장벽은 없어 주변 농지에서 일하는 사람이나 농지를 향해 이동 중인 사람들이 언제라도 있을 수 있으며, 인근에 있는 일산 가압장은 당시 공사 중이어서 공사 차량이 출입했을 가능성이 있고, 바로 옆에 위치한 편도 2차로인 ‘신 도로’와의 고저차도 그렇게 심하지 않아 ‘신 도로’가의 보행자 인도에서는 이 사건 구 도로는 물론 이 사건 공여 장소에서 일어나는 상황을 그대로 볼 수 있는 개방적인 위치에 있고, 이 사건 구 도로에 대한 변호인들의 통행량 조사에 의하면, 평일 오후 2시간 동안 240대의 차량이 지나갔다고 하고, 검찰 측의 통행량 조사에 의하면 1시간 동안 130대의 차량이 지나갔다고 하고 있으므로 평균적으로 30초에 1대꼴로 차량이 지나가는 도로여서 정치자금 공여 장소로는 적합하지 않다.

㈓ 공소외 1이 1차 공여 당시 상황을 비교적 자세히 묘사하고는 있으나 피고인 차량의 차종이나 색상 등 중요한 부분에 관해서는 기억을 못 하고 있고, 캐리어에 금품을 담는 방식에 관해 검찰 조사 당시에도 엇갈린 진술을 하였던 점에 비추어 이 부분 진술의 신빙성이 높지 않다.

(v)the place and method of the third and third grant;

There are the following questions about the place and method of delivery of the second and third money and valuables according to the prosecutor's statement by Nonindicted Party 1.

㈎ 피고인의 아파트 엘리베이터에는 눈에 띄게 CCTV가 설치되어 있어 피고인도 이를 잘 알고 있었을 것이므로 피고인이 자신의 집을 불법정치자금의 수수장소로 정했을 것으로 보이지 않는다.

㈏ 2차 공여 시점보다 3차 공여 시점이 피고인으로서는 대선 경선으로 훨씬 바쁜 시기여서 2, 3차 공여 당시 피고인이 처한 상황이 다르다는 점에 비추어 보면, 두 시점의 금품 공여 과정이 대부분 동일하다는 것은 의문이다.

㈐ 2차 공여 당시에는 공소외 1이 피고인의 아파트 안에서 차를 마시며 대화를 나누었다고 하면서도, 3차 공여 당시에는 대화를 나누는 것이 불편하여 아무런 대화도 나누지 않고 금품만 전달하고 돌아왔다고 하는 설명은 당시 피고인이 공소외 1의 자금제공 제의를 승낙하였다는 상황에 비추어 자연스럽지 않다.

⑹ 공소외 1이 검찰 조사 당시 피고인 2 관련 내용을 피고인 관련 내용인 것처럼 진술한 정황

At the time of the third investigation by the prosecution, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that the contact with the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 11 was received from the Defendant at the time of Nonindicted Party 1’s third investigation, and that Nonindicted Party 9’s purpose of Nonindicted Party 9’s statement was “the situation in which Nonindicted Party 2 attempted to attend Nonindicted Party 1 on the pastor and the Defendant’s meal,” and that Nonindicted Party 2 received such contact from Defendant 2 during the fourth investigation process, which failed to comply with this, was reversed. It is doubtful that Nonindicted Party 1 made an exaggerated statement as to the case related to Defendant 2 by combining Nonindicted Party 1 with the prosecution’s investigation atmosphere.

⑺ 그 외 원심은 ‘기타 이 사건에 나타난 정황과 부합하지 않는 점’, ‘진술 번복의 동기 관련 의문점’ 등의 제목하에 그 판시와 같은 사정 등을 설시하였다.

B. Judgment of the court below

Of the above judgment of the court below, it is sufficiently acceptable that the court below recognized the discretion of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement and rejected the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's statement in the court of original instance, but it is difficult to accept the rejection of Non-Indicted 1's credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement in the above judgment for the following reasons. (hereinafter the court below's rejection of Non-Indicted 1's credibility of Non-Indicted 1'

(1) The motive for Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement

㈎ 배신감 등으로 인한 허위 진술 가능성

In light of the following circumstances cited by the court below as the grounds for doubting the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement, namely, the fact that the defendant had a strong appraisal about the non-indicted 1's failure to help him/her, and the circumstance that Non-Indicted 1 asked the return of KRW 300 million and that Non-Indicted 1 wants to gain profits from his/her business by using the defendant's political route and the width of this case, etc., it is difficult for Non-Indicted 1 to have made an appraisal or demand the return of KRW 300 million to the defendant even though he/she did not know the defendant's money. Rather, Non-Indicted 1 demanded the return of KRW 300 million with the above appraisal and the return of KRW 300 million to the defendant with his/her own interest in addition, even if Non-Indicted 1 had a good appraisal under the above circumstances stated by the court below, it is difficult to view it as the grounds for doubting the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement.

㈏ 자금조성 내역, 채권회수목록 등을 기초로 자금전달 과정 및 상대방 등에 대하여 허위 진술할 가능성

This part of the judgment of the court below is premised on the premise that Nonindicted 1 had made a statement in accordance with the records on the fund raising, the list of claims collection, etc., which are already secured by the prosecution, or that Nonindicted 1 had made a false statement in accordance with the objective data held by him, but according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as Nonindicted 2’s prosecutor’s office and the statement at the court of original instance, etc., the prosecutor’s office had first made a statement on April 5, 2010, which is 90 million won directly for the defendant by mixing Nonindicted 1 with cash and USD 1 in 2007. The long time is difficult to keep his memory, but it is against the law of 207.3 billion won for travel, and it is hard to view that Nonindicted 1 had made an objective statement in the prosecutor’s office’s office’s office’s office’s office’s record that it had been submitted, or that there was no objective evidence that it had been presented to the prosecutor’s office’s office’s record that it was 2.

㈐ 공소외 5 등에게 복수를 하고 빼앗긴 회사를 되찾기 위한 허위 진술 가능성

According to the letter sent by Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 2 on June 7, 2010, etc., it is difficult to understand that Nonindicted 1 made a statement to Nonindicted 5, etc. without giving KRW 900 million to the Defendant, because it appears that the purpose of Nonindicted 1’s returning to Nonindicted 5, etc. is one of the personal reasons for which Nonindicted 1 made the prosecutor’s statement. However, according to the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, that is, Nonindicted 1’s statement to the effect that he cooperates in the investigation for the above purpose, it would not be said that Nonindicted 1 would seek to return to Nonindicted 1 from the prosecutor’s office at the time of investigation. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand that Nonindicted 1 made a statement to Nonindicted 1 without giving KRW 90 million to the Defendant, in view of the aforementioned important reasons that Nonindicted 1 made the aforementioned statement in the prosecutor’s office.

㈑ 추가기소의 두려움으로 인한 허위 진술 가능성

First, the court below's reasoning stated in this part of the judgment below is the non-indicted 1's statement in the court below, and the court below judged that the non-indicted 1's statement in the court below concerning the part concerning the place of use of KRW 900 million created by the non-indicted 1 is not reliable, but it seems that the part concerning the non-indicted 1's statement in the court below concerning the motive that the non-indicted 1 made in the prosecutor's office about the place of use of KRW 900 million is not reliable. However, if it is difficult to recognize "the credibility of the statement in the court below which made a false statement in the prosecutor's office with regard to the place of use of KRW 900 million and reversed his whole its prosecutor's statement," it is difficult to recognize the credibility of "the non-indicted 1 made a false statement about the place of use of KRW 900 million at the prosecutor's office and made a false statement about the motive so made, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below by dividing it with respect to the non-indicted 1's statement in the court.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 by the prosecution, it was difficult to understand the embezzlement of Nonindicted Party 1 before Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the prosecution about KRW 900 million, and the amount of embezzlement if it was embezzled, etc. In addition, the prosecutor did not have any materials to confirm the authenticity of Nonindicted Party 1’s above statement before Nonindicted Party 1 made a request to Nonindicted Party 2. In addition, in light of the contents of the above KRW 900 million funds raised by the court below, it is difficult to find out the contents easily. In such a situation, it is difficult to understand that Nonindicted Party 1 voluntarily made a statement to the prosecution that “the Defendant gave KRW 90 million to the Defendant.”

In addition, even if Nonindicted 1’s statement was based on the statement at the court of the court below that reversed the statement at the prosecutor’s office, it seems that there was no possibility of Nonindicted 1’s embezzlement in the investigation process of the instant case.

㈒ 공소외 7의 회유로 인한 허위 진술 가능성

Nonindicted 1’s statement in the lower court, which corresponds to the possibility of false statement due to Nonindicted 7’s conference, is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., Nonindicted 1’s statement in the lower court that conforms to the possibility of false statement due to Nonindicted 7’s conference, as seen earlier, is difficult to acknowledge the credibility as seen earlier, and Nonindicted 1 stated that “If political funds are true, he would not be able to do so. I will not do so?” and Nonindicted 1 stated that “I would give my time to think about this part,” and therefore, I am at the court of the lower court’s trial, such as Nonindicted 7’s statement that “I am at this time, I am there.” (C. 19179 page of the trial record), it does not seem that the interview with Nonindicted 7 was a critical opportunity for Nonindicted 1 to make a statement to the prosecution. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 1 did not appear to have been made a false statement due to an interview with the public prosecutor.

㈓ 공소외 1이 검찰에서 진술한 진술의 동기

On April 5, 2010, Nonindicted Party 1, at the prosecution, stated, “If only the principal is aware of the fact that he delivered money to the Defendant, only the principal is closed. However, Nonindicted Party 2 and some creditors were aware of the fact that the principal sent money to the Defendant. Furthermore, upon the Defendant’s request, most of the ○○ employees were aware of the fact that money would have been distributed to USD 1 in the name of the principal’s employees, and thus, it is impossible for the Defendant to conceal the fact that most of the ○○ employees were aware of the fact that money would have been distributed to the Defendant. Even if the principal did not deliver money, it was determined that the employee of the principal company would have been bad if said employee would have concealed all the facts in the future during the future investigation, then Nonindicted Party 1’s statement appears to have been highly persuasive, and in light of this, Nonindicted Party 1’s motive and intent to investigate the facts that it would have become important for Nonindicted Party 1 to the prosecution.”

Dol Points related to the friendly relationship between Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendant

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s dismissal of the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement is difficult to obtain some of its contents. In so doing, considering the relationship between the Defendant and Non-Indicted 1, it is difficult to accept that the lower court’s dismissal of the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement based on the circumstances as stated by the lower court.

㈎ 공소외 1의 아버지 공소외 3은 2010. 4. 19. 검찰에서 “2004년에 종친회 쪽에서 피고인에게 사무실을 좀 임대해줬으면 좋겠다는 식으로 연락이 와서 사무실을 임대해줬던 것으로 기억한다. 보증금으로 3,000만 원을 받았는데 당시 주변시세는 위 사무실의 경우 보증금이 1억 원 정도 되었던 것으로 기억한다. 피고인과는 본관이 같은 종친이고 피고인이 잘 되면 우리에게도 좋겠다는 생각에서 주변시세보다 적게 받았다. 3,000만 원도 안 받을 수는 있으나 그럴 경우 피고인에게 다른 문제가 생길 수 있다는 생각에서 3,000만 원은 받은 것으로 알고 있다.”라고 진술하였는데(수사기록 1881면), 위 진술 내용에 비추어 볼 때 가사 ◁◁메트로폴리스 건물에 공실이 있었다고 하더라도 위 사무실 임대에 관하여 피고인이 종친임을 고려하여 공소외 1이 피고인에게 혜택을 준 것은 분명한 사실로 보인다(또한 원심의 이 부분 설시는 앞서 본 바와 같이 믿기 어려운 공소외 1의 원심법정 진술을 기초로 한 것이다). 또한 이와 관련하여 피고인은 2004년 상반기경 공소외 3, 공소외 1과 함께 식사를 하면서 ‘사무실 임대료를 싸게 해줘서 고맙다.’며 넥타이를 하나씩 선물로 준 사실도 있다.

㈏ 또한 공소외 3의 위 진술 내용에 의하면 비록 위 사무실 임대 이전에 공소외 3과 공소외 1이 피고인을 개인적으로 알지 못하였다고 하더라도 공소외 3과 공소외 1은 피고인에 대하여 ▷▷ ▷씨 종친으로서의 유대감을 가지고 있었던 것으로 보인다.

㈐ 별다른 친분관계가 없음에도 공소외 1이 피고인의 집 가구 설치 등과 관련하여 피고인의 집을 직접 방문할 것으로 보이지도 않는다.

㈑ 피고인 아파트의 인테리어 공사 이익을 피고인이 누리게 되는 점, 공소외 1이 피고인의 집 인테리어를 하면서 가구 배치, 공사방법 등에 관하여 여러 모로 신경을 쓴 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 공소외 1은 피고인의 요청 내지 동의하에 위 공사에 관여하게 되었다고 봄이 상당하다.

㈒ 2006. 12. 20. 피고인이 □□□그룹 회장 공소외 4, ◇◇건설 회장 공소외 12와 공소외 1을 총리공관으로 초대하여 함께 만찬을 하였는데, 이는 당시 공소외 4가 공소외 1을 알지 못했던 점과 공소외 4 경영의 □□□그룹과 ○○건영의 주5) 규모 등에 비추어 볼 때 피고인과 공소외 1 사이의 상당한 친분관계를 전제로 하지 않고는 이해하기 어려운 상황이다. 원심은 피고인 2의 추천에 의하여 공소외 1이 위 만찬에 초대된 것이라는 피고인 2의 진술을 취신하는 것으로 보이나, 1억 원권 수표에 관한 피고인 2의 진술에 관하여 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 이를 믿기 어려운 것처럼 피고인 2의 위 진술도 믿기 어렵다고 판단되고, 만찬 주최자인 피고인이 만찬 참석자를 결정한다고 보는 것이 경험칙에 부합하며, 가사 피고인 2가 공소외 1을 위 만찬에 추천하였다고 하더라도 피고인의 결정 없이 공소외 1이 위 만찬에 초대되지는 않았을 것이고, 피고인과 공소외 1의 친분관계나 공소외 1이 위 만찬에 참석해도 좋다는 피고인의 배려 없이 공소외 1이 위 만찬에 참석하기도 어려울 것이다.

㈓ 원심이 거시한 공소외 1의 검찰 진술 및 공소외 9의 진술 내용에 의하면, 적어도 2007. 4.~6.경 피고인이 공소외 1과 ◎◎◎교회의 공소외 11 목사와의 만남을 주선하려 했던 사실은 있었던 것으로 보인다(이 역시 위 만남의 성격상 피고인 2가 위 만남을 결정할 수는 없다고 판단된다).

㈔ 공소외 1은 피고인의 대선후보경선 유세나 출판기념회 때 ○○건영의 버스를 제공한 바 있는데 피고인과의 친분관계를 전제로 하지 않은 채 단지 피고인 2와의 친분관계만에 기하여 공소외 1이 위와 같이 피고인 관련 행사에 위와 같은 편의를 제공한 것으로 보이지는 아니한다.

㈕ 2008. 2. 25. 피고인이 직접 공소외 1에게 전화하여 통화한 바 있고, 같은 달 27. 피고인은 공소외 1이 병원에 입원하는 날 공소외 3의 전화를 받고 당일 공소외 1의 병문안을 가기도 하였으며, 같은 달 28. 공소외 1은 현금 2억 원을 반환받고 피고인에게 전화하여 피고인과 통화하였고, 통화 종료 후 다시 같은 날 피고인이 공소외 1에게 전화하여 통화하였다.

㈖ 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건에서 드러난 객관적인 사실관계들만으로도 피고인과 공소외 1이 상당한 친분관계를 가지고 있었음은 인정할 수 있고, 이에 비추어 볼 때 원심이 설시한 바와 같이 공소외 1이 피고인의 집에 찾아가서 피고인을 일대일로 만난 다음 정치자금을 제공하겠다는 제의를 하지 못한다거나 피고인과 이 사건 금품을 수수할 수 없는 관계에 있었다고는 보이지 아니한다. 그 외 이 부분에 관하여 원심이 설시한 사정들도 위 금품 수수에 방해가 되지 아니한다.

ally, the point of question on the mobile phone entry time

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to accept this part of the lower judgment’s judgment, and it does not seem that Nonindicted Party 1’s phone number was influenced by the credibility of Nonindicted Party 1’s prosecutor’s statement, or that Nonindicted Party 1 did not know the Defendant’s telephone number before August 21, 2007, or made a telephone conversation.

㈎ 원심이 지적하고 있는 2010. 5. 11.자 공소외 1의 이 부분 검찰 진술 내용(수사기록 3055, 3056면)을 그대로 옮겨보면 다음과 같다.

It is essential that the statementer has not voluntarily submitted the mobile phone number (portable phone number 2 omitted), type, Samsung SCH-S480) used by the statementer.

I answer. The above mobile phone was used before it was detained in the medical prison on June 2008 and was left to the father in advance before it was detained. However, the prosecutor's investigator's office confirmed the above mobile phone which the prosecutor's investigator accepted in the father's house and submitted voluntarily at the prosecutor's office.

It is necessary to keep the phone number of Defendant 1 on the cell phone at his own discretion, which the person who made the statement submitted.

The answer is that this is the case. The (Carrying phone No. 1 omitted) stored in the mobile phone number book of the mobile phone number of Defendant 1 is the handphone number of Defendant 1. Nonindicted 13 is the female name. In order to distinguish between Defendant 13 and the actual mobile phone number of Nonindicted 13, the first letter was attached to Defendant 1’s ‘H’ and 13 H’ separately when indicating the sex of Defendant 1 in English.

The reason why he entered the mobile phone number as “Nonindicted 13H” is that he stated “Defendant 1’s total phone number”, but he knew of Defendant 1’s mobile phone number if he lost the mobile phone, he would not be harsh or she would not be harsh to him. In order to prevent this work, he did so.

A person who made a statement was aware of Defendant 1's cell phone numbers.

Before the answer, Defendant 1 was aware of the mobile phone number of Ngrgrgrgrgrgrgr's mobile phone number on March 2007, and he did not know about Defendant 2's mobile phone number, so he did not know about the phone number of Ngrgrgr's mobile phone number on his own with the thickness of Defendant 1 and, if there was an urgent situation in which Defendant 1 got up with the mobile phone and (on his mobile phone No. 1 omitted), Defendant 1 became aware of the telephone number of Ngrgrgr at that time by sending the above phone number.

In summary of the above prosecutor's statement, ① Nonindicted Party 1's cell phone number (number 2 omitted), Samsung CH -S480) was stored as "Nonindicted Party 13H and (Carrying phone number 1 omitted)" and ② Nonindicted Party 1 became aware of "(Carrying phone number 1 omitted)" which is the Defendant's cell phone number around March 207. In other words, Nonindicted Party 1 made a separate statement from the above facts ② The purpose of Nonindicted Party 1's cell phone number 1's cell phone number on the premise that it was not 107 or 13's cell phone number on August 207, 207, the lower court did not clearly understand the Defendant's cell phone number 1's cell phone number on the premise that the Defendant's cell phone number was 1's cell phone number on the premise that it was 10's cell phone number on the premise that the Defendant's cell phone number was 30's cell phone number on the premise that it was 10's cell phone number on the prosecution.

㈏ 통상 전자적 정보저장장치의 경우 정보의 수정은 기존 정보의 삭제와 새로운 정보의 입력이라는 과정을 통해 이루어지는데, 휴대전화 복구는 기술적으로 완전한 것이 아니어서 휴대전화 복구결과 공소외 1의 휴대전화에 피고인의 전화번호가 ‘공소외 13H'의 이름으로 2007. 8. 21. 입력된 내역만 남아있다고 하더라도, 이와 같은 결과는 기존에 저장되어 있던 전화번호부의 정보를 수정한 경우에도 나타날 수 있는 것이므로 공소외 1이 그 입력 이전에 피고인의 전화번호를 알지 못했다는 근거가 될 수 없다.

㈐ 피고인은 2007. 8. 21. 대선 경선 기탁금 납부를 위하여 공소외 1의 소개로 ◈◈은행 한남동 지점으로부터 대출을 받고, 2007. 8. 22. ◐◐당 대선 경선후보로 등록하여 공식적으로 선거활동을 시작하였는바, 위 시기에 비추어 볼 때 공소외 1이 기존 전화번호부상 피고인의 연락처를 위와 같은 가명으로 변경할 필요성을 느꼈을 가능성이 주6) 있고, 설령 그렇지 않더라도 정치인의 전화번호를 저장해두었다가 혹시 모를 일을 위해 가명으로 변경함에 있어 반드시 어떤 특별한 계기가 있어야 한다고 보이지는 않는다. 또한 공소외 1이 공소외 13H의 전화번호를 저장한 시간은 07:02경으로 이른 아침인데, 위 시간은 공소외 1이 피고인의 전화번호를 처음 알게 되어 그 번호를 저장하였다고 보기에는 부적합한 시간대로 보인다.

㈑ 공소외 1의 부친 공소외 3은 2010. 4. 19. 검찰에서 “2004년 초경 의원사무실을 임대해주는 과정에서 피고인 2 비서실장으로부터 전화번호를 받았다. 그 당시 본인이 메모해 두었던 전화번호가 수첩에 있다. 공소외 1이 쓰러져서 ♡♡병원 응급실로 실려간 뒤에 본인이 피고인의 위 전화번호로 전화를 하였다.”라고 진술하였고(수사기록 1884면), 실제 공소외 3의 수첩에 피고인의 전화번호가 ‘피고인 1, (휴대폰번호 3 생략) 주7) ’이라 적혀있는 점(수사기록 1893면)과 앞서 살펴본 공소외 1과 피고인 사이의 친분관계를 종합하여 보면 공소외 1은 위 피고인의 휴대폰 번호 입력시점 이전부터 피고인의 휴대폰 번호를 알고 있었다고 봄이 상당하다.

x) the place and method of the primary grant; and

The lower court’s determination on this part is difficult in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

㈎ 원심이 지적하고 있는 공소외 1의 이 부분 검찰 진술, 즉 “피고인으로부터 전화상으로 이 사건 구 도로로 오라는 말을 듣고 위 길로 갔더니 그곳에 승용차가 한 대 정차해 있어 직감적으로 위 승용차가 피고인의 차라는 것을 알아보았고 가까이 다가가 운전석에 여자가 앉아있는 것이 보여 피고인의 차라는 것을 확신한 후 위 승용차의 2, 3m 뒤에 자신의 승용차를 정차시키고 피고인의 승용차 조수석 뒷자리에 캐리어 가방을 옮겨주었다.”라는 부분은 공소외 1이 자신의 경험을 자연스럽게 진술한 것으로 보일 뿐 그 내용을 인위적으로 만들어낸 것으로 보이지 않는다.

㈏ 원심이 공소외 1 검찰 진술의 신빙성에 의문을 제기하는 근거로 설시한 위 3.가.⑷의 ㈏, ㈑항 및 ㈓항 중 공소외 1이 1차 공여 당시 피고인 차량의 차종이나 색상 등 중요한 부분에 대하여 기억을 못 하고 있다는 부분은 다음과 같이 그 자체로 이를 납득하기 어렵다.

① At the time of the instant case, Nonindicted Party 1 appears to have discovered and directly known the Defendant’s vehicle at the location of the instant case, and thus, it cannot be seen that the Defendant was approaching the Defendant’s vehicle. This is also the same even if the former road was be bended.

② In addition, even if the Defendant called “in front of an apartment” to Nonindicted 1 by telephone, the Defendant appears to have been able to move on the road of this case that he talked with Nonindicted 1 in advance (it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 1’s office was aware of the time required for the Defendant to arrive at the Defendant’s office from Nonindicted 1’s office because the office was located in the Defendant’s office, as acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court).

③ Although Nonindicted Party 1 explained the situation at the time of the primary grant, it is also likely that Nonindicted Party 1 could not memory the type or color of Defendant 1’s vehicle.

㈐ 원심은 현장검증결과를 토대로 위 3.가.⑷의 ㈐항과 같이 ‘운전자가 선팅이 되어 있는 차량의 운전석에 탑승하고 있는 경우 뒤 차량의 운전자로서는 앞 차량의 뒤에 정차하기 전에는 물론 3m 정도 뒤에 정차한 후에도 곧바로 운전석에 앉은 사람의 성별을 확인하는 것이 쉽지 않은 것으로 보였다.’라고 판시하였고, 이는 검증조서상 ‘재판장이 에쿠스 차량에 승차하여 앞의 아반테 차량의 운전석을 확인해 보았다. 뒷차량에서 앞차량의 운전자를 확인해보았더니 식별이 용이하지 않았다.“라는 기재부분(공판기록 19911면)을 기초로 한 것으로 보이나, 원심이 설시한 바와 같이 공소외 1은 당시 피고인의 차종을 기억하지 못한다고 검찰에서 진술하였고, 이에 따라 위 검증은 피고인의 차종, 선팅 정도 등을 확인할 수 없는 상태에서 이루어졌으며, 그 계절과 날씨 등도 1차 공여시와 다른 것으로 보이므로 이러한 점에서 위 검증결과는 한계가 있는 것으로 보인다.

㈑ 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 이 사건 구 도로가 평소에 차량과 보행자의 통행으로 혼잡한 곳이 아니고(오히려 인적과 차량의 통행이 드문 곳으로 보인다), 이 사건 구 도로의 윗부분인 신 도로의 보행자 도로에서는 이 사건 공여 지점의 상황이 거의 보이지 않으며, 이 사건 구 도로 주변 토지는 대부분 농지로 사용중인 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 또한 공소외 1의 검찰 진술에 의하면, 당시 피고인은 피고인의 차량 밖으로 나오지 않은 채 공소외 1이 캐리어 가방을 피고인의 차량 안으로 넣어주었다는 것이다. 위 인정 사실과 공소외 1의 위 검찰 진술 등에 비추어 보면 공소외 1의 검찰 진술상 이 사건 구 도로의 공여 지점이 정치자금 공여 장소로 부적합하다고는 보이지 아니한다.

㈒ 1차 공여 당시 캐리어에 금품을 담는 방식에 관하여 원심이 설시한 바와 같이 공소외 1의 검찰 진술이 일부 변경된 바 있으나 이는 1차 공여 당시 1억 원권 수표가 교부된 사실을 뒤늦게 기억하게 된 공소외 1이 다시 기억을 재생하여 진술하는 과정에서 발생한 결과로 보이고 이는 충분히 수긍할 수 있는 상황으로 보인다(게다가 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 공소외 1은 1회만 위와 같이 캐리어에 금품을 담은 것이 아니라 총 3회에 걸쳐서 캐리어에 금품을 담은 바 있고 수표는 1차 공여 당시에만 캐리어에 담았으므로 1억 원권 수표를 기억하지 못한 상태에서 캐리어에 금품을 담는 방식에 관한 진술은 충분히 착오가 발생할 수 있다고 판단된다).

(v)the place and method of the third and third grant;

This part of the judgment of the court below does not seem to obstruct the defendant's situation that CCTV was installed in the defendant's apartment elevator with snow in his house to be a place where the money was received in this case (in the appearance of the non-indicted 1, because the non-indicted 1 merely went to the defendant's house with capital, it is hard to understand that the non-indicted 1 would deliver money to the defendant), and the CCTV does not have a usual preservation period, and there is no reason to see that the defendant's three primary delivery period is much bad than the second primary delivery period, and that there is no reason to see that the second and the third delivery period should vary in the second delivery period at the time of the non-indicted 1's second delivery, unlike the second delivery period, it is also difficult to accept it in light of the fact that the second and the second delivery period at the time of the non-indicted 1 did not stop and returned only to the money.

⑹ 공소외 1이 검찰 조사 당시 피고인 2 관련 내용을 피고인 관련 내용인 것처럼 진술한 정황

According to Non-Indicted 1's three times and the prosecutor's statement pointed out in this part of the judgment of the court below, it may be interpreted as the court below. However, on the other hand, in Non-Indicted 1's three-time prosecutor's statement, Non-Indicted 1's three times of prosecutor's statement, since it is the defendant, the defendant was the subject of contact, and there is room to interpret that he was responsible for specific contact with the defendant 2 in the fourth prosecutor's statement. Thus, in light of the above, the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement cannot be rejected.

⑺ 기타

In addition, the circumstances that the court below did not recognize the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement, such as the circumstances stated under the title of "other circumstances shown in this case" and "any question points related to the motive for reversal of the statement", etc. shall not interfere with the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement recognized as follows.

4. The part concerning the disbursement of April 30, 2007 and August 27, 2007, among the entries in B books.

A. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Nonindicted Party 1 could not be readily deemed to have delivered funds raised on April 30, 2007 and August 27, 2007 to the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that the said statement is related to the Defendant is not reliable, on the grounds that: (b) although it is generally deemed that the credibility of B book is high; (c) as to the part on which the Defendant was claimed by the prosecutor that the disbursement was paid to the Defendant among the disbursement details recorded on B book; and (d) there is no indication that it was related to the Defendant; and (d) there is no credibility of Nonindicted Party 2’s statement to the effect that the said entry was related to the Defendant.

(1) The phrase “$ 13,00,000 ($174,00)” in the B’s account book shall only prove the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 incurred expenses including USD 1,00,000 on the said date and time, and shall not have independent probative value in relation to the fact that the expenses were delivered to the Defendant. However, in combination with Nonindicted Party 2’s statement on April 30, 2007 and August 27, 2007, the phrase “$ 174,000,000 ($174,000)” shall be deemed as supporting the facts charged in this case.

⑵ 공소외 2는 제2회 검찰 조사 당시 “피고인 1 전 총리에게 줄 돈을 준비하라고 할 때에는 매번 사장님이 ’은팔찌 차고 안 차고는 너 하기 나름이다‘라고 각별히 주의를 강조하였다. 사장님이 달러 환전 지시를 하면서 대놓고 피고인 1 이름을 거론한 것은 아니지만, 은연중에 피고인 1 전 총리에게 주는 돈이라는 것을 표현하기도 하였고, ‘은팔찌’를 강조하는 것은 고위 공직자 등에게 뇌물로 주는 부정한 자금일 것이라는 추측을 자연스레 하였고, 사장님 주변에 그러한 자금을 받을 만한 고위 공직자로는 제가 아는 한 피고인 1 전 총리 외에는 없었기 때문에 저는 당연히 ▷ 전 총리에게 주는 돈으로 알게 된 것이다.”라는 취지로 진술하였고, 또한 “내가 B장부를 작성하기 전에 회사 내부에서 총괄장부를 작성해왔다고 하였는데 2007. 3.경 사장님이 처음으로 ▷ 전 총리에게 돈을 주고 나서 위 총괄장부 중 돈을 준 날짜의 금액 옆에 ‘한’이라고 기재한 적이 있었고, 내가 제출한 ‘채권회수목록 백데이터 주9) ’ 를 보면 거기에도 2007. 3. 30. 업체명에 ‘의원’이라고 내가 임의로 기재하였듯이 처음부터 나는 사장님이 나에게 조성하도록 한 자금이 ▷ 전 총리에게 갈 것이라는 것을 알고 있었다.”라고 진술하였다. 이러한 공소외 2의 설명에 의하더라도 ㉮ 총괄장부에 ‘한’이라는 기재가 있는 점, 채권회수목록 백데이터에 ‘의원’이라는 기재가 있는 점은 채권회수목록의 해당 기재 부분이 피고인과 관련된 부분이라는 점에 대한 근거가 될 수는 있을지 몰라도 B장부의 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 기재가 피고인과 관련된 것임을 확신할 수 있는 근거로는 보기 어렵고, ㉯ 공소외 1이 자금 조성을 지시하면서 ‘은팔찌’ 이야기를 하였다는 점도 그 조성 자금이 피고인과 관련된 자금이라는 점에 대한 근거로는 부족해 보인다.

⑶ 공소외 2는 원심법정에서 B장부의 해당 기재가 피고인과 관련된 기재임이 너무나 자명한 사실인 것처럼 진술하는 한편, B장부 해당 기재가 채권회수목록에 누락된 경위에 관하여는 ‘채권회수목록은 B장부를 참고하지 않고 접대비 엑셀파일만을 토대로 작성한 것이다. 접대비 엑셀파일은 원래 총괄장부 및 B장부 기재 사항을 근거로 작성하는 것이지만 B장부 기재 내용 중 일부는 접대비 엑셀파일 작성 과정에서 누락되었을 수가 있다. 피고인과 관련된 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 B장부 해당 기재는 접대비 엑셀파일 작성 과정에서 누락되어 채권회수목록에 반영되지 않은 것이다.’는 취지로 진술하였는데, ㉮ 채권회수목록 백데이터에 기재된 2007. 4. 18.자 공소외 9에게 제공한 접대비 1억 원 부분은 B장부의 ‘2007. 4. 18. 공소외 9 부사장(교회건) 현금, 100,000,000원’ 기재를 근거로 한 것으로 보이고, 채권회수목록 백데이터에 기재된 2007. 8. 31. 피고인 2에게 제공한 경비 5,000,000원 부분도 B장부의 ‘피고인 2 5,000,000원’ 기재를 근거로 한 것으로 보이는바, B장부의 2007. 4. 18.자 기재와 2007. 8. 31.자 기재 사이에 있는 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 기재가 접대비 엑셀파일 작성 과정에서 누락되었다는 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ㉯ 채권회수목록 백데이터 중 피고인 관련 부분 하단에는 공소외 2가 “4/30 현금경비 170,000,000, 확실히 모르겠음”이라고 수기로 기재한 부분이 있는데, 위 기재는 B장부의 ‘2007. 4. 30. ○○ 170,000,000원’이라는 기재를 참고하지 않고서는 기재하기 어려운 것으로 보이는 점[공소외 2는 채권회수목록 백데이터의 “4/30 현금경비 170,000,000, 확실히 모르겠음”이라는 기재에 관하여 채권회수목록 작성 당시인 2008. 7.경에 기재한 것이라고 일관되게 진술하였는데, 그 구체적인 기재 경위에 관하여는 검찰에서 ‘채권회수목록 작성 당시 B통장을 생각하지 못하여 법인계좌에서는 그 금액이 증빙 없이 빠져나갔는데 그 이유를 알 수 없어 써놓은 것으로 보인다.’는 취지로 진술하였다가, 원심법정에서 변호인이 법인계좌에서 2007. 4. 30. 빠져나간 돈은 1억 7,000만 원이 아니라 2억 원이므로 법인계좌를 보고 위와 같은 기재를 하는 것이 불가함을 지적하자 ‘(법인계좌가 아니라) B장부를 보고 기재하였다.’고 진술을 번복하였다가, 변호인이 B장부를 보고 기재하였다는 진술은 채권회수목록 작성 당시 B장부를 참고하지 아니하였다는 공소외 2의 검찰에서의 진술과 모순됨을 지적하자 ‘무엇을 보고 쓴 것이 아니라 기억에 의해서 쓴 것이다.’라고 또다시 진술을 번복하였는데, 변호인이 지적하는 바와 같이 위와 같은 기재는 법인계좌의 거래 내역을 보고 기재할 수 있는 것으로는 보이지 않고, 위와 같은 구체적인 일자와 금액을 자금 집행일로부터 1년 이상이 지난 상황에서 아무런 자료도 참고하지 아니하고 기억에 의하여 기재한다는 것도 거의 불가능해 보이는바, 공소외 2는 B장부를 참고하여 위와 같은 기재를 한 것으로 보인다] 등에 비추어 볼 때, 채권회수목록 작성 당시 B장부를 참고하지 않았다는 공소외 2의 진술은 믿기 어렵고, 공소외 2는 채권회수목록을 만들 당시 B장부의 내용을 반영한 것으로 보이는데, 채권회수목록의 피고인 관련 부분에는 B장부의 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 내용이 포함되어 있지 아니한바, 결국 공소외 2는 2008. 7.경 채권회수목록을 작성하면서 B장부에 기재된 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 기재 내용이 피고인과 관련된 부분이라는 생각을 못하였던 것으로 보이고, 그러한 공소외 2가 2010. 4.경 이 사건 수사 과정에서는 B장부의 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 기재 내용이 피고인과 관련된 부분이라고 너무나 확실하게 진술하고 있어 그 진술의 신빙성이 의심스럽다.

B. Judgment of the court below

However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

(1) Even if Non-Indicted 2’s explanation, it is difficult to view it as the grounds for conviction that it is related to the Defendant’s entry on April 30, 2007 and August 27, 2007 in the B’s list of collection of claims, and that Non-Indicted 1’s talked about “Trut” while ordering the Defendant to raise the funds, whether the funds are insufficient on the grounds of the fact that the funds are related to the Defendant.

㈎ 공소외 2의 검찰과 원심 및 당심법정에서의 진술 요지는 다음과 같다.

① It is only three times to raise funds at the direction of Nonindicted Party 1, purchase bags for travel, and put them in USD and cash.

② At each time Nonindicted Party 1 instructed to raise funds, Nonindicted Party 1 emphasized the security by taking her flusium, which was not at all different time.

③ At the three times, Nonindicted Party 1 stated “limited” in the column on which the general book was entered, and asked the meaning thereof, and Nonindicted Party 1 said that the member was a money that would be a member of the National Assembly, and that the member was the Defendant.

④ The reason why B book was not written differently from other parts in the relevant column of entry as of April 30, 2007 and August 27, 2007 is because B book was composed of a book with Nonindicted 2, who was the originator, and Nonindicted 1, who was the approval, and that it was aware that it was paid to the Defendant.

⑤ Around March 30, 2007, around April 30, 2007, and around August 2007, every three times to provide funds to the same person, which was created with USD 100 and cash, and in which money was added to a travel room. The Defendant is the person.

㈏ 공소외 2의 위 각 진술에다가 원심 및 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음 사정들, 즉 채권회수목록의 2007. 8. 20.자 2억 원 상당과 B장부에 기재된 2007. 8. 27.자 1억 원 상당은 함께 조성되어 위 3억 원 상당이 함께 여행용 가방에 담긴 점, 공소외 2의 위 각 진술 중 ㈎③항 부분에서 총괄장부 해당 기재 적요란의 ‘한’이라는 기재의 의미에 관한 공소외 2의 질문에 대하여 공소외 1이 의원님에게 줄 돈이라고 답변한 것은 공소외 2도 알고 있는 ‘한 의원’을 지칭한 것이라고 봄이 상당하고, 이는 피고인인 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 종합장부의 ‘한’이라는 기재나 채권회수목록 세부자료의 ‘의원’이라는 기재는 모두 달러로 자금이 조성되는 B장부 2007. 4. 30.자 및 2007. 8. 27.자 부분과 연결된다고 충분히 인정할 수 있고, 공소외 1이 자금 조성을 지시하면서 ‘은팔찌’ 이야기를 하였다는 사정도 그 조성 자금이 피고인과 관련된 자금이라는 점에 관한 하나의 정황으로 볼 수 있다.

Whether Nonindicted Party 2’s entry in B’s account book was not well known that it was related to Defendant 1 even though Nonindicted Party 2’s referenced to B’s account book at the time of the collection of claims, and the credibility of Nonindicted Party 2’s statement related thereto.

㈎ 채권회수목록 백데이터의 2007. 4. 18.자 공소외 9 부분과 2007. 8. 31.자 피고인 2 부분 관련

Nonindicted 2 stated to the effect that, with respect to the entertainment expense X-cell files, which were the grounds for the collection of claims consistently in the prosecutor’s office, the lower court, and the trial court, consistent with the fact-finding court, “the entertainment expense X-cell files are not basic books. The entertainment expense X-cell files were created in one’s own manner so that they can promptly answer at the time of being asked by Nonindicted 1. The entertainment expense X-cell files may not be reported daily to Nonindicted 1, but may have any part omitted if they were immediately aware of the need. There may be some omissions of the contents. Although there may be some omissions of the contents, the contents of the trial record may not be recorded.” According to the above statement made by Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, the record of April 18, 2007 and the record of August 31, 2007, even if they were omitted in the process of preparing the entertainment expense.”

㈏ 채권회수목록 백데이터 중 피고인 관련 부분 하단에는 공소외 2가 “4/30 현금경비 170,000,000, 확실히 모르겠음”이라고 수기로 기재한 부분이 있는데, 위 기재가 B장부의 ‘2007. 4. 30. ○○ 170,000,000원’이라는 기재를 참고하지 않고서는 기재하기 어려운 것인지 여부

① As to this, Non-Indicted 2 consistently stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court of original trial, “Non-Indicted 2 recorded the above detailed data on the claim recovery list” as a substitute for the above ○○○○○○ Accounting Data kept in the USB on April 30, 207, which was found to have been spent in KRW 170,000 under the name of cash expense without evidence, but did not appear to have been recorded in the account book at the time of transfer of money to B. The above statement was made in the account book at the time of the court below’s submission of the above 4/30,000 won in the account book at the time of the settlement of accounts in the USB, but it did not appear to have been recorded in the account book at the time of the above non-Indicted 2’s submission of the above 4-60,000 won in the account book at the time of the court below’s submission of the above 4-6,000 won in the account book at the time of the above examination (the above statement in the court below 26364, supra).

② The part of April 30, 200 of the B’s book is written as “170,000,000” in the column of “income amount” as “170,000,000,” and the written as “amount of expenditure” in the column of “cash 13,000,000.” In light of the fact that the written as mentioned above does not coincide with “4/30 cash expense 170,000,000” among the detailed data in the list of claims recovery in the list of claims collection, it is difficult to view that the detailed data in the list of claims collection in question was written as “○○ 170,000,000,000” in the B’s book as “amount of collection of claims” (Nonindicted 2 stated in the court room as “30,000,000,000,000,000).

㈐ 소결

In light of this, although it is difficult to see that Nonindicted 2 referred to the B book at the time of the collection of claims was being made, the above judgment of the court below is difficult to obtain the above credibility on the premise that Nonindicted 2 referred to the B book at the time of the collection of claims in the B book at the time of the collection of claims, and on the premise that Nonindicted 2 was referring to the B book at the time of the collection of claims, it appears that the contents recorded in the B book at the time of the collection of claims were related to the Defendant in the investigation process of this case, even though it appears that the contents recorded in the B book at April 30, 2007 and August 27, 2007 in the B book at the time of the investigation process of this case were not likely to have been thought that they were related to the Defendant, and it is difficult to obtain the above judgment of the court below that the credibility of Nonindicted 2’s statement is doubtful. Rather, in light of the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s reasoning that there is no specific reason to view that the credibility of Nonindicted 2’s statement and the two testimony.

5. Records in the list of recovery of claims, the portion disbursed on March 30, 2007 and August 20, 2007

A. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that it cannot be readily concluded that Nonindicted Party 1 delivered KRW 300 million created on March 30, 2007 and KRW 200 million created on August 20, 2007 to the Defendant solely on the basis of the following circumstances as to the aforementioned portion of the claims claimed by the prosecutor, including the fact that there are most financial materials that correspond to the fact that the amount was withdrawn at the time indicated in the list of claims collection in the list of claims collection, including that there were most financial materials that correspond to the fact that the amount was withdrawn on the date indicated in the list of claims collection. However, the lower court determined that Nonindicted Party 1 delivered the list of claims collection and its detailed materials, and Nonindicted 20 million won created on August 20, 207, to the Defendant.

(1) Nonindicted 2 stated that the entertainment expense X-cell files prepared by referring to the general account book or B were classified by each person and made back back back back back data in the list of collection of claims.

㈎ 그러나 접대비 엑셀파일의 작성방식에 관한 공소외 2의 진술에 의하더라도, ㉠ 접대비 엑셀파일은 공소외 1의 지시에 의해 만든 자료가 아니라 공소외 2가 자신의 업무 편의를 위해 엑셀프로그램을 이용하여 자신이 보기 편리한 형태로 임의로 작성한 자료이고, ㉡ 그 기재의 정확성에 관하여 공소외 1로부터 결재를 받거나 검증을 받은 일이 없으며, ㉢ 매일 매일 작성하는 것이 아니라 필요할 때 한꺼번에 몰아서 작성하는 것이므로 누락된 부분이 존재할 수도 있다는 것인데, 그렇다면 결국 접대비 엑셀파일은 그 기재방식 자체로 사후 조작이 쉽지 아니한 일반적인 영업장부와 달리 공소외 2가 필요에 따라 사후에도 얼마든지 그 기재를 추가하거나 삭제할 수도 있는 것이어서 그 기재의 정확성을 담보할 만한 장치가 없는 것으로 보인다.

㈏ 공소외 2는 공소외 1이 총괄장부에 ‘한’이라는 기재를 해 주었기 때문에 그 지출내역이 피고인과 관련된 것이라는 것을 알 수 있었다고 진술하고 있는데, 공소외 2의 진술에 의하더라도 공소외 1이 총괄장부에 ‘한’이라고 기재한 것은 단 한번 뿐이라는 것이므로, 2007. 3. 30.자 3억 또는 2007. 8. 20.자 2억 중 한 번은 총괄장부에 ‘한’이라는 기재조차 없었다는 것이 되어, 결국 위 두 차례 중 한번은 총괄장부의 근거 없이 공소외 2의 추측 또는 기억에 의존해서 기재한 것으로 보아야 하는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 접대비 엑셀파일의 기재 자체에 오류의 가능성이 있다.

Examining the detailed data on Nonindicted 7’s submission of the list of claims, which appears to have been prepared using the X-cell file, which is the basis of the list of claims recovery, there is a difference between the form of the list of claims recovery, and the part related to the Defendant of the detailed data on the list of claims recovery. There is a difference between the Defendant and the part related to the Defendant of the detailed data on the list of claims collection. Of the detailed data on the list of claims collection, “Defendant 20,000,000 won” is printed on the document of “20,000,000 won” and “20,000,000,000 won” among the detailed data on the list of claims collection. However, there is no possibility that “the Defendant 20,000,000,000 won” may be added to “the aforementioned detailed data on the list of claims collection,” and “the Defendant 20,000,000,000 won,” among the detailed data on the list of claims collection.

Secondly, Non-Indicted 2 participated in the raising of the instant funds as the head of ○○○○ Accounting Division, but did not witness how and how the funds were used, and even according to the Non-Indicted 2’s statement, Non-Indicted 1 did not explicitly talk about the place where the funds were used while ordering the raising of funds, and Non-Indicted 1 did not talk about the place where the funds were used, and Non-Indicted 1 asked Non-Indicted 1 to answer the “Neman” in the general account book and to write the “Korea” on the general account book, and thought it is a money to be the Defendant. Accordingly, Non-Indicted 2 seems to have a limit to know the accurate place of use of the funds that he created.

Applicant Circumstances that there are accuracy in other parts of the claim recovery list, and that the source of the fund is clearly explained, are to enhance the credibility of the claim collection list, but such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the part related to the defendant in the claim collection list is accurate.

(v) it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that Nonindicted 1 delivered to Defendant 2 the purport that he would use the funds raised on March 30, 2007 as Defendant 1’s substitute election funds, and Nonindicted 2 explained to Nonindicted 2 that he was money between him and that he was money between him.

B. Judgment of the court below

However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

(1) Whether there is no device to ensure the accuracy of the entertainment expense X-cell files and there is possibility of an error in the entries themselves of the entertainment expense X-cell file.

㈎ 피고인 관련 부분을 제외한 채권회수목록의 다른 기재 내역이 모두 정확성이 있다는 것은 원심도 인정하고 있는데, 이를 전제로 할 경우 당연히 채권회수목록과 그 세부자료의 작성 근거인 접대비 엑셀파일의 정확성도 인정된다고 봄이 상당하다.

㈏ 이에 비추어 볼 때 원심이 적시하는 위 가.⑴㈎항의 ㉠, ㉡, ㉢과 같은 사정들만으로 접대비 엑셀파일 기재의 정확성이 담보되지 않는다고 볼 수는 없다. 또한 앞서 본 공소외 2의 진술에 의하면, ‘접대비 엑셀파일의 일부내용이 누락되었을 가능성은 있으나, 없는 내용이 기재될 수는 없다.’는 것이므로 적어도 접대비 엑셀파일에 기재된 내용의 정확성은 상당 부분 담보된다고 보인다. 그리고 채권의 회수를 목적으로 하는 채권회수목록의 성격 및 앞서 본 바와 같이 원심이 설시한 공소외 2의 진술에 의하여 알 수 있는 접대비 엑셀파일의 목적 등에 비추어 볼 때 공소외 2가 임의로 접대비 엑셀파일의 기재내용을 작출할 가능성도 희박하다.

㈐ 위 4.나.⑴항에서 본 바와 같은 여러 사정을 종합하여 보면, 공소외 2는 단순히 총괄장부에 ‘한’이라고 1회 기재된 것만을 근거로 접대비 엑셀파일에 피고인 관련 부분을 기재한 것이 아니라, 그와 같은 여러 사정을 기초로 접대비 엑셀파일에 피고인 관련 부분을 기재한 것임을 인정할 수 있다. 이에 비추어 보면 두 차례 중 한번은 총괄장부의 근거 없이 공소외 2의 추측 또는 기억에 의존해서 기재한 것으로 보아야 하기 때문에 접대비 엑셀파일의 기재 자체에 오류의 가능성이 있다는 원심의 판단은 수긍할 수 없다.

In light of the difference in the list of claim recovery and the difference in the printed part of the list of claims submitted by Nonindicted 7, whether Nonindicted 2 could have any error in the arbitrary operation process of entertainment expense X-cell file at the time of the compilation of entertainment expense X-cell file and the collection list of claims by Nonindicted 2 around July 2008.

In light of the above, Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that “explosives were recorded in the list of 207, Aug. 20, 2007, and the disbursement of KRW 200,00,000.” However, if there were errors in the editing process, Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that “explosives were recorded in the list of 7,00,000 won” and “explosives were not included in the list of 4,00,000 won.” The reasoning behind Nonindicted Party 2’s statement that “explosives were recorded in the list of 7,00,000,000 won,” such as the list of 7,000 won and 7,000 won, were not included in the list of claims collection. This is that there was no difference between the list of claims collection and 5,000,000 won and the list of claims collection. This may be considered to have been recorded in the list of claims collection.

In addition, Non-Indicted 2’s statement appears to be limited to Non-Indicted 2’s accurate use of KRW 900 million created by Non-Indicted 2, and Non-Indicted 2 did not directly participate in the process of delivering the above KRW 900 million. However, as seen later, Non-Indicted 2’s statement is not appropriate in that it corresponds to the list of collection of claims, the description of claims, B’s book, financial transaction tracking results, the bank purchase receipt for travel, Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement, and combined with the above other evidence to recognize the facts charged of this case against the Defendant.

Applicant In addition, the lower court determined that it cannot be readily concluded that the part relating to the Defendant in the claim collection list was accurately recorded solely on the basis of the accuracy of other parts of the claim collection list, but it is difficult to understand the credibility of the claim collection list by dividing it into those related to the Defendant and other parts without any grounds.

(v) The court below may not eliminate the possibility that Nonindicted 1 delivered the funds raised on March 30, 2007 to Defendant 2 to the effect that it would be used as the Defendant’s substitute election funds. However, it is also difficult to eliminate the possibility that Nonindicted 2 explained to Defendant 2 that the said funds would be money. However, the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as follows: Nonindicted 1 expressed to Defendant 2 that the money to be delivered to Defendant 2 would always be Defendant 2; accordingly, the money offered to Defendant 2 was written as Defendant 2 in the book; there was no reason to explain to Nonindicted 2 that Nonindicted 1 would deliver the money to Defendant 2; in light of the amount of the above funds as seen below, it is difficult to accept that Nonindicted 1 was the recipient of Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 2,000,000 won, and Nonindicted 2,000 won, in light of the amount of the above funds, etc., the Defendant’s right to use Nonindicted 2, 200 million won.

6. Details of raising and exchanging funds, details of purchasing Capitals, and photographs of the market;

A. The judgment of the court below

There is no probative value as to whether Nonindicted Party 1 delivered the created funds to the Defendant or not.

B. Judgment of the court below

Even if the above evidence does not have direct probative value as to whether non-indicted 1 delivered the above funds to the defendant, it is determined that the defendant has probative value as to the facts charged of this case in full together with other evidence as seen below.

7. The fact that Nonindicted 1 received 200 million won from the Defendant

A. The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the following circumstances are insufficient to recognize the fact that the subject of return of KRW 200 million is the Defendant solely on the evidence and circumstances presented by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) Non-Indicted 14 and Non-Indicted 3’s statements to the effect that the above return of KRW 200 million was the Defendant, and Non-Indicted 1’s statements to the effect that much funds were needed for Defendant 2, as long as the person making the original statement was present and testified as a witness at the court of original trial, are not admissible as it does not fall under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the same purport of Non-Indicted 17’s statements to the same effect, and are inadmissible as there are no circumstances that guarantee credibility as there is no evidence.

Shed Nonindicted 15 made a statement to the effect that the Defendant: (a) was sicked by Nonindicted Party 1; and (b) Nonindicted Party 5 left cash after a day or a day.

⑶ 피고인이 위 2억 원의 반환 전날인 2008. 2. 27. ♡♡병원으로 공소외 1의 문병을 왔다는 사실은 인정되나, 공소외 3의 검찰 진술에 의하더라도 공소외 3이 피고인과 전화통화를 할 당시 피고인 2가 옆에 있었다는 것이므로 피고인 2와 공소외 1과의 관계 등에 비추어 굳이 피고인 2가 병문안시 동행하지 않을 이유를 찾기 어려운 점, 공소외 3이나 공소외 15의 진술에 피고인 2가 특별히 등장하지 않는 것도 사실이지만 그렇다고 해서 검사가 ‘피고인 2가 함께 왔는지’를 확인하고 이를 부인하는 답변이 있는 것도 아니며 공소외 3과 공소외 15로서는 전 국무총리인 피고인이 아들을 병문안 왔다는 것만이 중요한 사실로 기억에 남아 피고인과 동행하였던 피고인 2에 대하여 특별한 기억이 없을 가능성도 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 피고인 2가 진술한 바와 같이 당시 피고인은 피고인 2를 대동하고 왔던 것으로 보이고, 공소외 1이 반환을 요청한 것은 피고인 2었을 가능성이 있다.

According to the records of the mobile phone restoration, around 15:30 on February 28, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 made a telephone call to the Defendant for 31 seconds, and around 15:50 on the same day, the Defendant made a telephone call to Nonindicted Party 1 for 30 seconds, and Nonindicted Party 5 received KRW 200 million from Defendant 2 and reported the receipt of KRW 200 million to Nonindicted Party 1. As to the above contents of the telephone call by the prosecutor, Nonindicted Party 1 sent the phone call to the Defendant, and Nonindicted Party 1 sent the phone call to the Defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the above contents of the telephone call are naturally related to Nonindicted Party 1’s return of KRW 200 million. However, it is difficult to view that the above contents of the telephone call from the prosecutor’s office after the lapse of 200 million on the grounds that it was not related to the above return of KRW 100 million to Nonindicted Party 28.

B. Judgment of the court below

However, in light of the following circumstances, the above judgment of the court below excluding the above A. (a) is not acceptable.

⑴ 검찰에서, 공소외 1은 2010. 4. 12. “피고인이 ♡♡병원 응급실로 본인의 병문안을 왔을 당시 누구와 같이 왔는지는 기억이 나지 않는다.”라고 진술하였고[수사기록 1178면, 공소외 1은 원심법정에서도 같은 취지의 진술을 하였다(공판기록 3999면)], 공소외 3 또한 2010. 4. 19. “당시 피고인이 혼자서 온 것 같았고 곁에 누가 있었는지는 기억이 나지 않는다.”라고 진술하였다(수사기록 1883면). 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 당시 공소외 1과 공소외 3 모두 피고인 2를 잘 알고 있었던 것으로 보이므로, 당시 피고인이 피고인 2와 같이 공소외 1에 대한 병문안을 하였다면 공소외 1과 공소외 3이 피고인과 같이 온 피고인 2를 기억하는 것이 자연스러움에도 위와 같이 공소외 1과 공소외 3이 피고인의 공소외 1에 대한 병문안 당시 피고인만을 기억하고 있다는 것은 피고인이 피고인 2를 대동하지 않았기 때문이라고 봄이 상당하다. 공소외 15 역시 2010. 4. 19. 검찰에서 “병원 주차장에 보좌관이나 비서관이 있었는지는 모르나, 응급실 안에는 피고인 혼자 들어와서 공소외 1을 문병하였다.”라고 공소외 1과 공소외 3의 위 각 진술에 부합하게 진술하였다(수사기록 1947면). 이에 비추어 볼 때 2008. 2. 27. 공소외 1에 대한 병문안 당시 피고인이 피고인 2를 대동하고 왔음을 전제로 하여 공소외 1이 2억 원의 반환을 요청한 대상이 피고인 2었을 가능성이 있다고 본 원심의 판단은 납득하기 어렵다.

D. In addition, on February 28, 2008, the court below rejected the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement concerning the above two occasions of telephone conversations on the ground that Non-Indicted 1 made two times of telephone conversationss by the defendant and the defendant on February 28, 2008. This part of the prosecutor's statement issued by the court below is about the whole context of telephone conversations between Non-Indicted 1 and the defendant at the time of the court below, and such telephone conversationss are not considered to be naturally harmful in light of the circumstances at the time. In addition, the fact that Non-Indicted 1 was made immediately after the delivery of KRW 200 million to Non-Indicted 1, the subject who returned KRW 200,000,000, is not the defendant 2 but the defendant 10,000,000 won.

As seen earlier, as to the money to be delivered to Defendant 2, Nonindicted Party 1 entered the money provided to Defendant 2 in the account book “Defendant 2” in accordance with Nonindicted Party 2’s talking on the money to Defendant 2. The amount is the maximum of KRW 30 million per time provided, and most of the amount is a maximum of KRW 5 million, and it seems that the sum is much less than KRW 200 million. In such a situation, it is difficult to deem that Nonindicted Party 1 may demand the return of KRW 200 million to Defendant 2 or that the amount received by Defendant 2 may be returned to Nonindicted Party 1). On April 12, 2010, Nonindicted Party 1 also stated that “Defendant 2 has no amount of KRW 20 million or more to Defendant 2,000,000 to Defendant 2” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 17,000,000).

8. The fact that Nonindicted 6 used the KRW 100 million check

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that although it is difficult to believe that Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 6’s statement that Defendant 2 lent the above KRW 100 million check to Nonindicted 1 as a pre-tax credit, the circumstances that were objectively revealed are only the situation that Defendant’s partner Nonindicted 6 used the KRW 100 million check, it cannot be readily concluded that the above KRW 100 million check was delivered to Nonindicted 6 from the Defendant, and even if Nonindicted 6 received the KRW 100 million check from the Defendant, such fact does not immediately mean that the Defendant was delivered the KRW 100 million check from Nonindicted 6, even if he was given the above KRW 100 million check from Nonindicted 6.

B. Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the fact-finding by the court below that Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 6 were unable to believe the above KRW 100 million receipt slip issued by Nonindicted 1 was used as a full-time loan by Defendant 6, and the judgment of the court below that Defendant 2 lent the above KRW 100 million receipt slip to Nonindicted 6 is just and acceptable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence. However, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 6 received the above KRW 100 million receipt slip from the Defendant, and the Defendant received the above KRW 100 million receipt slip from Nonindicted 1.

(1) In light of the fact that Nonindicted 6 and Nonindicted 1 do not know each other, it is difficult to think that Nonindicted 6 received the above KRW 100 million check directly from Nonindicted 1.

D. As seen earlier, Defendant 2 lent the above KRW 100 million check to Nonindicted 6 (in the original court, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 6 stated to the effect that Defendant 2 lent the above KRW 100 million check to Nonindicted 6), so long as it is difficult to see that Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 6 stated to the effect that “the above KRW 100 million check was lent to Nonindicted 6,” there is no possibility that Defendant 2 may give the above check to Nonindicted 6 for any other purpose. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 2 did not correspond to the above KRW 100 million check to Nonindicted 6.

If so, in light of the relationship with Nonindicted Party 1, it appears that there is no person other than the Defendant who would give the above KRW 100 million check to Nonindicted Party 6 in the vicinity of Nonindicted Party 6, and this conforms to Nonindicted Party 1’s prosecutor’s statement.

According to the statement of Nonindicted 6 at the court below, Nonindicted 6 made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 6 attempted to communicate with Defendant 2” without having contact with Defendant 2 after the press report on KRW 100 million check, but according to Nonindicted 6’s above statement, it appears that Nonindicted 6 did not have contact with Defendant 2 at the time of Nonindicted 6’s above statement, and Nonindicted 6’s above statement was sent to the Defendant by receiving a copy of the above KRW 100 million check from Nonindicted 45, and it appears that Nonindicted 6 received the above KRW 100 million check from the Defendant, and that this circumstance appears to be due to material evidence that Nonindicted 6 received the above KRW 100 million check from the Defendant.

(v) Nevertheless, the Defendant and Nonindicted 6 did not provide an explanation to accept the said KRW 100 million statement by repeating only the assertion that it is difficult to believe, as seen earlier, with regard to the developments leading up to Nonindicted 6’s possession of the said KRW 100 million statement in the court room.

9. The fact that Nonindicted 1 demanded KRW 300 million and planned the width of the instant case

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that it is not enough to presume that the non-indicted 1 made a statement to the effect that "the non-indicted 1 demanded money in the course of meeting with the defendant 2, and the defendant 2 demanded money of KRW 300 million. The answer will be wrong because it talks with the non-indicted 15," and that there was a fact that the non-indicted 1 made a political inquiry into the case, but in full view of the following circumstances, it is doubtful whether the non-indicted 1 actually demanded KRW 300 million to the defendant 2, and even if the non-indicted 1 demanded money of KRW 300 million to the defendant 2, as long as it cannot be ruled out that the non-indicted 1 was not the object of giving illegal political funds, but the non-indicted 1 was given an illegal political fund of KRW 900 million to the defendant.

(1) On May 26, 2009, the copy of the meeting with Defendant 2, stating the content with Defendant 2, stating that Defendant 2 asked Non-Indicted 1’s inner part, and Non-Indicted 1 said that his and her mother are not good, and Non-Indicted 1 said that the office was organized by Defendant 2, but there is only a statement that Non-Indicted 1 demanded money from Defendant 2.

Doshe said that Nonindicted Party 1 sent a letter to Defendant 2 demanding KRW 300 million in the conversation with Nonindicted Party 15, but there is no way to confirm whether Nonindicted Party 1 requested money to Defendant 2 on the last day because it is impossible to confirm the letter sent by Nonindicted Party 1 to Defendant 2, and if so, there is no way to confirm how to demand money.

Defendant 2 would have been demanded from Nonindicted 1 to return KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000 won check, etc., which is the basis of suspicion by the prosecution. Defendant 2 would have been able to take any measures corresponding thereto. Defendant 2 could not find out any other measures for Nonindicted 1’s future month, except for the fact that Nonindicted 15 and Nonindicted 3 were aware of the livelihood subsidy for Nonindicted 3, or that the gift was given to Nonindicted 3 at the time of conjection.

x) Even though there was no special reply from Defendant 2 with respect to the letter sent by Nonindicted Party 1, it seems that Nonindicted Party 1 did not take any follow-up measures, such as sending a letter to urge Defendant 2 again.

B. Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is acceptable to recognize the facts that Non-Indicted 1 talked with Non-Indicted 15, such as the above reasoning of the court below, and the above judgment of the court below is also acceptable in light of the following circumstances, etc.

(1) Although Nonindicted 1 did not demand money in the course of meeting with Defendant 2 and did not send a letter demanding KRW 300 million to Defendant 2, Nonindicted 15, one’s mother, who requested money in the course of meeting with Defendant 2, did not have any reason to conclude a false statement with the following: “The mother demanded money in the course of meeting with Defendant 2, and sent a letter demanding KRW 300 million to Defendant 2.”

It appears that it is difficult to enter all matters in the meeting book prepared by the prison officer. On May 26, 2009, the copy of the meeting book prepared by Defendant 2, stating the contents of meeting with Defendant 2, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 1 did not demand money from Defendant 2 solely on the ground that Nonindicted 1 did not state the contents of Defendant 2’s request for money. Rather, as stated in the copy of the above meeting book, there is a statement that “the office of Defendant 2 arranged the office, the office of Defendant 1 would help Nonindicted 1’s mother if arranged.” In light of the fact that the above office deposit is not Defendant 2 but Defendant 2, it is reasonable to deem that the above conversation was made because Nonindicted 1 demanded money from Defendant 2.

In light of the content of Nonindicted Party 1’s talks with Nonindicted Party 15 as seen above, the lower court’s reasoning is difficult to deem that Nonindicted Party 1 did not demand KRW 300 million to the Defendant through Defendant 2.

As seen earlier, Nonindicted Party 1 returned KRW 200 million to Nonindicted Party 1, and the principal who delivered the above KRW 100 million ticket to Nonindicted Party 6 is the Defendant, and Nonindicted Party 1 did not deliver the above amount of money with Defendant 2 as the recipient. Thus, even if Defendant 2 was through Defendant 2, it is reasonable to deem that Nonindicted Party 1’s demand for the above KRW 300 million is the Defendant.

10. Determination as to the assertion of absence at the site

A. The judgment of the court below

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court determined that the defense counsel’s assertion that the Defendant was not at the site at the time of receiving the first and third money and valuables was justifiable, as follows.

(1) As to the primary receipt of money and valuables

㈎ 공소외 1의 검찰 진술에 의하면 1차 금품 제공 당시 수표를 현금화할 여유가 없었고 평일이었다고 하므로 수표의 현금화가 가능한 날짜들과 주말은 범행가능일시에서 소거하여야 한다.

㈏ 그렇다면 이 사건 공소사실에서 1차 자금 전달 시기로 특정한 기간 중에 위와 같이 소거되고 남는 것은 결국 2007. 4. 2. 하루에 불과한데 피고인은 그 날 오후 3시경부터 8시경 사이에 국회 본회의에 참석하고 있었던 사실이 인정되므로 이날 오후 4시에서 6시 사이에 피고인이 고양시 일산동구의 당시 자택 인근의 도로 상에서 공소외 1로부터 돈을 받는 것은 불가능하였다.

b.3 Acceptance of money and valuables

㈎ 공소외 1의 진술에 의하면 3차 금품 제공일시 또한 평일이었다고 하며, 공소외 1은 2007. 9. 5.부터 2007. 9. 8.까지는 괌으로 여행을 다녀왔으므로 주말과 위 여행기간은 범행가능일시에서 소거하여야 한다.

㈏ 그렇다면 이 사건 공소사실에서 3차 자금 전달 시기로 특정한 기간 중에 위와 같이 소거되고 남는 것은 ㉠ 2007. 8. 29., ㉡ 2007. 8. 30., ㉢ 2007. 8. 31., ㉣ 2007. 9. 3., ㉤ 2007. 9. 4., ㉥ 2007. 9. 10.이다.

㈐ 그런데 피고인은 ㉠ 2007. 8. 29. 오후 6시에 국회 의원회관 소회의실에서 ‘피고인 1과 대학생 정치체험단의 유쾌한 만남’이라는 행사에 참석하였고, ㉡ 2007. 8. 30. 오후 5시 반에 ▤▤▤의 ▥▥▥▥▥신당 대선 예비후보 3명과의 생방송 대담에 출연하였으며, ㉢ 2007. 8. 31. 오전에는 제주도 중소기업종합지원센터에서 열린 ■■■당 개편대회에, 오후에는 국회의원회관에서 열린 “교육 매니페스토 서명식”에 참석하였고, ㉣ 2007. 9. 3. 오후에 광주 ●●● 컨벤션센터에서 열린 ◐◐신당 국민참여운동 ▲▲본부 발대식에 참석하였으며, ㉤ 2007. 9. 4. 대외일정을 잡지 않고 온종일 문화방송 100분 토론 및 텔레비전 토론 준비를 하였고, ㉥ 2007. 9. 10. 청주시에서 열린 “▥▥▥▥▥신당의 합동연설회”에 참석한 사실이 인정되므로, 피고인이 이러한 일정을 소화하던 중 갑자기 오후 4시에서 6시 사이에 고양시 일산구에 있는 자택으로 일시 귀가해서 공소외 1로부터 금품을 수수한다는 것은 거의 불가능하였다.

B. Judgment of the court below

(1) As to the primary receipt of money and valuables

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that there is a reason to prove the absence of counsel in the field of receiving the first money and valuables.

㈎ 공소외 1은 2010. 5. 11. 검찰에서 “1억 원권 수표가 인출된 시점이 처음에 드린 돈을 인출한 2007. 3. 30.인 것으로 보아 그 당시 수표를 현금으로 바꾸지 못해서 급한 마음에 1억 원은 자기앞수표로 드린 것 같다.”라고 진술하였다(수사기록 3045면). 공소외 1의 위 검찰 진술내용은 ‘1차 자금을 조성한 날인 2007. 3. 30. 당시 1억 원에 관하여 수표를 현금으로 바꾸지 못했다.’는 취지에 불과한 것으로 보이므로 이러한 공소외 1의 검찰 진술내용만으로 원심의 위 설시와 같이 피고인에 대한 이 사건 공소사실의 1차 금품 수수 당시 일자 중 수표의 현금화가 가능한 날짜로서 2007. 4. 2. 외의 평일을 범행가능일자에서 모두 제외함이 상당하다고 단정할 수는 없다.

㈏ 또한 위 ㈎항에서의 공소외 1의 진술내용 및 다음 사정들에 의하면 1차 금품 수수가 평일에 이루어졌다고 단정할 수 없고 따라서 주말을 범행가능일시에서 소거하는 것도 타당하지 않다고 판단된다.

① On April 7, 2010, Nonindicted Co. 1 stated that “The day when Nonindicted Co. 1 delivered KRW 300 million to the Defendant on the road of this case” (the day when it was delivered to the Defendant was not the weekend) and that “the day when it was delivered KRW 600 million in total at the Defendant’s house shall be deemed that it was a day other than the weekend,” and that “the day when it was delivered KRW 600 million in total at the Defendant’s house and KRW 300 million in the old road of this case are not the day when it was delivered,” and that “the day when it was delivered KRW 40 million in total at the Defendant’s office and the day when it was delivered KRW 60 million in total at KRW 40 million on the road of this case, it is not the day when it was delivered at KRW 80 million in total, but the day when it was delivered at KRW 400 million in light of the fact that it was not the day before the Defendant’s office.”

② In addition, in order to raise funds on March 30, 207, upon Nonindicted Party 1’s instruction, Nonindicted Party 2 purchased funds from the Defendant on March 31, 2007 at night at a discount of KRW 100 million on a daily basis, distributed the funds, and then exchanged the funds for more than the banking hours, and then at the night, Nonindicted Party 2 purchased funds. In light of the foregoing, Nonindicted Party 1 appears to have attempted to rapidly deliver funds at the time. If there are circumstances, it is likely that KRW 300 million, which was created on March 30, 2007, was delivered to the Defendant on March 31, 2007, the following day.

③ 이에 관하여 공소외 1은 2010. 4. 8. 검찰에서 “당시 공소외 2로부터 현금과 달러로 3억 원 상당이 준비되었다는 보고를 받고 피고인에게 전화를 걸어 ‘언제 찾아뵈면 되겠습니까’라고 말하자 피고인이 하루, 이틀 뒤로 일자와 시간을 정해주었다. 그런 후에 공소외 2에게 여행용 캐리어 가방을 하나 사오라고 하여 공소외 2가 사온 여행용 캐리어 가방에 3억 원 상당의 현금과 달러를 넣어 준비한 다음 다시 피고인을 찾아뵙기로 약속한 날짜와 시간 무렵에 전화를 걸어 ‘지금 출발하겠습니다’라고 말하였더니 피고인이 ‘아파트 앞에 오시면 연락주세요’라고 하였다.”라고 진술하였는데(수사기록 849면), 공소외 1의 위 진술도 위 ①항 및 ②항의 사정에 부합한다.

b.3 Acceptance of money and valuables

Even according to the above facts, the court below's decision that the defendant could not receive KRW 300,00 from non-indicted 1 because he returned home on September 4, 2007, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., even if the defendant prepared for a debate and television debate on the 100-minute cultural broadcasting of the 100-day culture that he had not opened the external schedule on September 4, 207, and it does not seem that he could not receive KRW 300,000 from non-indicted 1 because he temporarily returned home, and even if the defendant participated in the event, etc. as stated by the court below on August 29, 2007, August 30, 2007, and August 31, 2007, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the defendant was unable to receive money and valuables from the non-indicted 1 because he returned home on his own.

11. Conclusion

As seen earlier, the judgment of the court below is most difficult to accept and, rather, it is judged that the prosecutor's statement, which is a direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case against the defendant, could be sufficiently admitted to the defendant in light of the following circumstances: although the non-indicted 1 reversed the whole statement made by the prosecutor in the court of original trial, there are many corresponding evidences, especially the fact that the non-indicted 6 used the certificate of KRW 100 million issued by the non-indicted 1, especially the fact that the non-indicted 1 was returned KRW 200 million from the defendant and the defendant was additionally demanded KRW 300 million from the defendant; the list of recovery of claims and the contents of the book; the prosecutor's office of the non-indicted 2 and the court of original trial, each statement made by the court of original trial and the court of original trial, and the credibility of this case can be recognized in light of various circumstances acknowledged by each evidence described below including each of the above evidence. Accordingly, the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of facts, and the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Ⅲ. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal No. 14

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

(a) Acceptance of 40 million won in cash;

피고인은 2007. 2. 28.경 고양시 (주소 2 생략) ◁◁메트로폴리스 사무실 501호 국회의원 피고인 1의 지역구 사무실에서, 공소외 1이 피고인 1의 지역구 사무실 운영이나 대선 경선 활동에 사용하라면서 현금 500만 원을 서류 봉투에 넣어 전달하자 이를 수수한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2007. 3. 23.경까지 사이에 같은 장소에서 같은 명목으로 별지 ⑶ 현금 수수 일람표 기재와 같이 총 3회에 걸쳐 합계 4,000만 원을 수수하였다.

(b) Free use of buses;

From June 2007 to September 2007, the Defendant received 2007-type bus 1 free of charge from Nonindicted Party 1 and received economic benefits in the amount of money by using the 2007-type bus 2007-type bus 1 leased monthly user fee of KRW 3,185,803 from Hyundai Macks social at several times at various events necessary for the competition activities, such as Defendant 1’s publishing commemorative meeting and water sources, etc.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. The portion received in cash of KRW 40 million

The lower court, based on the following circumstances, determined that it was insufficient to view that the Defendant was paid KRW 40 million in cash from Nonindicted 1.

(1) The credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement

In full view of the following circumstances, Nonindicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement on this part appears to have been stated to the effect that, although the list of claims to be recovered and detailed materials related to the Defendant are not accurate memory, it was intended to cooperate with the prosecutor’s investigation. There is no way to verify the reasonableness or objective reasonableness of the statement due to the lack of the existence of any specification about the process or method of delivering money to the Defendant. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is credibility to use it as evidence of guilt against the Defendant.

㈎ 공소외 1의 이 부분 검찰진술은 그 내용이 추측에 불과하고, 공소외 1이 피고인에게 2007. 3. 19. 500만 원을 지급하고 곧이어 2007. 3. 23. 3,000만 원을 지급하였다면 그 지급에 어떤 계기가 있을 텐데도 그 지급경위에 관하여 전혀 기억하지 못하고 있다.

㈏ 실제로 3,000만 원을 전달한 사실이 있다면 그 전달 경위에 관해 개략적이나마 기억할 수 있을 텐데, 현금 3,000만 원을 어디에 담아서 어떻게 전달하였는지에 관하여도 전혀 기억하지 못하고 있다.

㈐ 공소외 1은 원심이 유죄로 인정한 부분, 즉 1,000만 원씩 세 차례 및 500만 원씩 다섯 차례 지급한 부분은 비교적 구체적으로 진술하여 이 부분과 상반된 모습을 보인다.

㈑ 공소외 2의 진술에 따라 그것이 맞다고만 진술하였다는 등의 공소외 1의 원심법정에서의 진술이 더 설득력이 있다.

Do Governor's credibility of detailed data on collection of claims

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the detailed data on the collection of claims in relation to this part of the facts charged are reliable.

㈎ 채권회수목록 세부자료의 기초인 접대비 엑셀파일이 남아있지 아니하여 접대비 엑셀파일의 기재형태와 정확성을 검증할 방법이 없는바 접대비 엑셀파일의 기재 자체에 오류의 가능성이 있고, 접대비 엑셀파일을 편집하여 채권회수목록을 작성할 당시 그 접대비 엑셀파일의 임의적인 조작 과정에서 오류가 발생할 가능성이 있다.

㈏ 채권회수목록의 기초가 된 접대비 엑셀파일을 그대로 이용하여 작성되었을 것으로 보이는 공소외 7 제출의 채권내역서 세부자료에는 이 부분 3,000만 원 부분에 대한 기재가 없다.

㈐ 공소외 2, 공소외 1은 1,000만 원씩 세 차례 및 500만 원씩 다섯 차례 지급한 부분과 달리 이 부분에 관해서는 구체적으로 진술하지 못하였다.

B. The free use of the bus

(i) the portion of the bus provision relating to the publishing commemorative association

In the case of the portion of the bus provided in relation to Defendant 1’s publishing commemorative meeting, Nonindicted Party 1, along with the ○○ Construction Employees, used ○○ bus while attending the publishing commemorative meeting, and Nonindicted Party 1, together with the ○○ Construction Employees, appears to be the cost to be originally borne by Nonindicted Party 1 or ○○ Construction. In full view of the fact that the transportation cost to attend the above publishing commemorative meeting appears to be the cost to be the cost to be borne by Nonindicted Party 1 or ○○ Construction, it is difficult to view this part of the bus to have provided political funds to the Defendant. Even if Defendant 1, who used part of the above domestic bus without ○○ Construction, used it by Defendant 1, who was not related to the above ○○ Construction and Management, for the main purpose of the transportation convenience of Defendant 1, who was not related to the above ○○ Construction and Management, it is difficult to regard

B. The part on the provision of the bus related to the Seoul Metropolitan area from June 2007 to September 2007

㈎ 다음 사정을 종합하면 피고인에 대한 유죄 부분에서 인정된 피고인 1의 청주, 울산, 춘천 유세 외에 수도권 유세 등에 참석하기 위해 버스를 무상으로 제공받은 사실이 있음이 합리적 의심 없이 인정된다고 보기 어렵다.

① Nonindicted 14 stated in the lower court that Nonindicted 14 was carrying the Defendant on an agricultural product-related building located in a broad site, such as a university campus, located in a water source in the lower court’s court. However, Nonindicted 14 stated that it is not a campaign site.

② Nonindicted 14 stated in the lower court’s trial that Nonindicted 14 was not memoryd for election campaign in Seoul Gyeonggi-do.

③ Even according to the prosecutor’s statement made by Nonindicted 14, the local area was three times to participate in Defendant 1’s local milk, and the purpose of the Seoul Gyeonggi Games is to see that Defendant was carrying the Defendant on and carrying the Defendant, but it is not well memory in detail.

㈏ 한편 다음 사정을 종합하면 위 버스가 2007. 6.경부터 계속적으로 피고인에게 무상으로 제공된 상황이라고 보기도 어렵다.

① The bus is a leased bus for advertising ○○ Construction around June 19, 2007.

② Nonindicted 14 operated once a day for the purpose of selling a bus and a day-to-day zone using the bus for the purpose of selling it.

③ Nonindicted 14 operated the bus to assist Nonindicted 3’s individual gathering schedule.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. The portion received in cash of KRW 40 million

The judgment of the court below on this part is hard to accept for the following reasons.

(1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is determined that the defendant was provided with cash of KRW 40 million from Nonindicted 1 as political funds as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

㈎ 앞서 검사의 피고인 1에 대한 항소이유 주장에 관한 판단 부분 중 Ⅱ.5.나.⑵항에서 본 바와 같이 채권회수목록 세부자료의 신빙성은 인정되고 채권회수목록 세부자료의 작성과정에서 일부 지출내역이 누락될 수는 있을지라도 다른 지출내역이 잘못 추가되어 작성될 가능성은 없었다고 보이는데, 공소외 2가 작성한 채권회수목록 세부자료에 의하면, 2007. 2. 28. 5,000,000원, 2007. 3. 19. 5,000,000원, 2007. 3. 23. 30,000,000원이 피고인에게 접대비로 지급되었다고 명확하게 기재되어 있고 위 날짜에 실제로 같은 금액의 현금이 공소외 1의 차명계좌에서 인출되었다[위 Ⅱ.5.나.⑵항에서 본 바와 같이 공소외 7 제출의 채권내역서에 이 부분 3,000만 원 부분에 대한 기재가 없는 이유는 소팅(Sorting) 차이, 즉 ‘급여’를 포함하여 소팅하는지, 아니면 ‘접대비’만으로 소팅하는지 등의 차이에 따른 것으로 보인다].

㈏ 공소외 1의 검찰 진술을 살펴보면 공소외 1은 피고인에게 여러 번 돈을 주었기 때문에 위와 같이 4,000만 원을 교부하게 된 경위를 정확히 기억하지 못하고 있었던 것으로 보일 뿐이고, 앞서 검사의 피고인 1에 대한 항소이유 주장에 관한 판단에서 본 바와 같이 그 진술의 신빙성을 인정할 수 있다.

㈐ 공소외 1이 피고인에게 이 부분 현금 외에도 법인카드, 이 사건 승용차 등 다양한 형태의 금전적 지원을 하였던 점에서 이 부분 금원이 제공된 경위에 있어 어떠한 의심스러운 정황도 보이지 않는다.

㈑ 또한 앞서 본 바와 같이 공소외 1의 원심법정에서의 진술은 그 신빙성을 인정할 수 없다.

Shebly, the prosecutor's argument in this part is with merit.

B. The free use of the bus

According to the records, it is justified that the court below recognized various facts and circumstances as mentioned above and judged based on them, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. This part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

IV. Judgment on Defendant 2’s assertion of grounds of appeal in Section 15

1. The judgment of the court below

The lower court also asserted that this part of the grounds for appeal are the same as the allegations in the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on this point.

A. The portion of giving and receiving KRW 30 million in cash

(1) The acceptance of cash in this part is not acceptable in light of the following: (a) the entry of the B-book, the financial data, and the prosecutor’s statement by Nonindicted 1, whose credibility is recognized; and (b) the reversal statement by Nonindicted 1’s court of original instance that there was no fact giving cash to the Defendant is inconsistent.

Shedd Fund was paid to Nonindicted 1 to voluntarily return 50% the monthly salary to Defendant 1’s local office employees, and to preserve the said monthly salary. In full view of the fact that Defendant 1 was in charge of the operation of the local office as Defendant 1’s Class 7 secretary at the time, the above KRW 30 million is a political fund.

B. Parts such as provision of corporate cards and transfer of accounts

The lower court determined as follows after recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning under the title of “the relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant 1, the status of the Defendant,” “the relationship between the Defendant and the Nonindicted Party 1,” and “support to the Defendant by Nonindicted Party 1.”

(i) Whether the provision of financial benefits is made as activity expenses for the establishment of the elderly convalescent Hospital in ○○○; or

㈎ 다음 사정에 의하면 이 부분 재산상 이익을 ○○건영의 노인요양병원 설립 사업 활동비로 볼 수 없다.

(1) No defendant has knowledge or experience in a convalescent hospital for older persons.

② Even though the Defendant alleged that he/she exchangeds data and opinions with respect to Nonindicted Party 1 and a convalescent hospital for senior citizens, the Defendant did not properly explain this.

③ 피고인은 2007. 1.경 공소외 1로부터 노인요양병원 이사장직 제안을 받았다고 주장하나, 공소외 1이 ▨▨▨ 부지 사업에 본격적으로 관여하게 된 것은 2007. 2.경으로 보이는 점, 공소외 1은 2007. 3. 17.경까지도 ▨▨▨ 부지에서 어떠한 사업을 할지에 관하여 명확한 계획이 없었고 노인병원은 하나의 선택 사항으로 고려되고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, 공소외 1이 2007. 5. 10. ▨▨▨ 부지 매매계약 체결시에도 빌라 사업 추진 가능성을 열어두었던 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 위 주장은 믿기 어렵다.

④ On February 2 to 3, 2007, the Defendant received the proposal from Nonindicted Party 1, and argued that Nonindicted Party 16, who was early on the recommendation, recommended him as the head of the elderly convalescent hospital. However, Nonindicted Party 16 stated that “the senior citizen who was the same senior citizen in the sanatorium,” who was notified of the suspension of qualification on or around December 2006, the Defendant stated that “the senior citizen was not heard from Nonindicted Party 1,” but he was “the senior citizen in the hospital,” and Nonindicted Party 16, who completed the military doctor, was working as the head of the hospital for about five years at the hospital outside one outside of one, and did not have any experience in operating the general hospital or the elderly convalescent hospital, and did not have any experience or ability to be the head of the hospital of the senior citizen, which was promoted on the maximum domestic scale, it is difficult to view that the Defendant requested Nonindicted Party 1 to seek the compensation for employment of Nonindicted Party 16 in relation to his business.

⑤ At the time, Defendant 1’s status as a public official of Grade VII at the time was not concurrently engaged in other duties, and the advice given in relation to the business of a sanatorium for the aged was merely limited to the level of “Mauritius.”

④ Nonindicted Party 1 offered a corporate card to the Defendant on March 2007, and the time when the car was offered to the franchise is around May 2007, and the time when the car was offered to the Defendant on July 2007, which started to provide KRW 5 million per month. This is in line with Nonindicted Party 1’s assertion that Nonindicted Party 1 would be treated as a director in relation to the establishment of a sanatorium for the aged at around January 2007, and that the Defendant actually accepted it on February 3, 2007.

(7) The Defendant was provided with a juristic person card which does not have any limit, unlike other ○○○ directors, and was provided with KRW 5 million every month through a borrowed name deposit passbook.

8) At the time of Nonindicted 1’s offering money to the Defendant, Nonindicted 1 created an account in the name of Nonindicted 5, unrelated to the Defendant, and wired the passbook and seal to the Defendant in the form of a 5 million won per month, thereby choosing a secret way in which money is not left to the Defendant. If the money was paid every month in the form of giving a director’s treatment, there is no reason to pay the money by such a secret way.

㈏ 다음 사정을 종합하면 이 부분 이익 또한 정치자금이라고 인정할 수 있다.

① Nonindicted 1 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office that the provision of this part of the profit was the pretext of Defendant 1’s subsidization of expenses, etc. to be incurred by the Defendant in connection with the competition activities and the operation of local office.

② The time to provide this part of the profit, such as corporate cards, was around the time of Defendant 1’s presidential election. Defendant 1’s Grade 7 visa, was engaged in various political activities, such as assisting Defendant 1 in political activities, such as taking charge of the operation of local constituency office as Defendant 1’s Grade 7 visa, and managing a supporters’ association.

③ In light of the Defendant’s use of the instant corporate card, many of the details used in relation to Defendant 1’s assistance to the activities of competition.

d. The time when the instant car was returned

In full view of the following circumstances, it cannot be readily concluded that the time when Nonindicted 1 returned the instant car provided to the Defendant is prior to February 28, 2008, which is the date and time indicated in the facts charged.

㈎ 이 사건 승용차의 반환시기에 관하여 공소외 2는 2007. 12.말경, 공소외 14는 2008. 1.경으로 기억하고 있기는 하나, 공소외 2, 공소외 14의 각 진술내용에 비추어 볼 때 공소외 2, 공소외 14가 정확한 일시를 기억하는 것은 아닌 것으로 보이고, 그에 반하여 공소외 5는 2008. 2. 28. 피고인으로부터 2억 원을 받아올 당시 피고인이 이 사건 승용차를 이용하였다는 사실을 생생하게 기억하고 있음을 검찰에서 분명하게 진술하였다.

㈏ 피고인 1은 2008년 총선 출마를 위한 선거사무실을 고양시 (주소 3 생략)에 있는 ◆◆빌딩에 개설하였고, 위 ◆◆빌딩에 피고인 1의 선거사무실이 개설된 시기는 2008. 2. 23.경인데, 공소외 14는 피고인으로부터 위 ◆◆빌딩 지하주차장에 주차되어 있는 이 사건 승용차를 가져가라는 전화를 받고, 위 ◆◆빌딩 지하주차장에서 이 사건 승용차를 회수하였다는 취지로 원심법정에서 진술하였다. 그렇다면 이 사건 승용차의 반환 시기는 최소한 2008. 2. 23. 이후로 보여 위 공소외 5의 진술에 부합한다.

C. The portion of free use of the bus

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the defendant provided political funds to allow the defendant to use the bus free of charge.

(1) As to the circumstances in which Nonindicted Party 1 provided a bus to the Defendant, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “The Defendant requested the support or the mobilization of personnel for the bus owned by ○○ building and instructed Nonindicted Party 5 to the same effect, and accordingly, the Defendant continued to provide a vehicle support on the bus line.”

B. At the lower court, Nonindicted 14 stated that “The bus the Defendant and Defendant 1 supporter are aboard, and Defendant 1 was operated by bus due to the Cheongju, Ulsan, Chuncheon, etc., with the duty of care of Defendant 1. At the time, Nonindicted 14 stated in the lower court’s trial that “at the time, the documents stating the place of the movement are on a book, and the documents stating the place of the movement are on a book, and thereafter, he operated the Defendant and Defendant 1 supporter with the boarding, and there was no cost of oil or operation.”

Defendant 1 appears to be unrelated to the ○○ Construction Division, who is attending the above Cheongju, Ulsan, and Chuncheon United States bus leased by ○○○ Construction.

Applicant The bus is provided intermittently to Defendant 1 at the local office of Defendant 1 whenever it is necessary to provide the convenience of attending local taxes to Defendant 1, and it is difficult to regard the cost of using the bus as the transportation cost to be borne by the voluntary sponsor. It appears that the cost of using the bus is the cost to be borne by Defendant 1’s local office.

2. Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is just for the court below to determine as above on the basis of the above circumstances. (However, the part of the court below's reasoning that "the defendant recommended Non-Indicted 1 as the sponsor of the general interest unit of Defendant 1 around December 20, 2006 and provided an opportunity for the defendant 1 to provide meals with the chairperson and the non-Indicted 12 in the general interest mission" is understood to the purport that the defendant led Non-Indicted 1's general interest mission of the non-indicted 1. This part of the court below's reasoning for appeal against the defendant 1 is not correct as it did not affect the conclusion of this part of the court below. However, as seen in the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal against the defendant 1, the prosecutor's credibility of Non-Indicted 1's prosecutor's statement is recognized, and the defendant's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's property profits are not found in this part of office's political fund.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's ground of appeal against Defendant 1 is with merit, and the prosecutor's ground of appeal against Defendant 2 is with merit. The above part against Defendant 2 is related to the guilty part of the judgment below against the above defendant, and one punishment should be imposed. Thus, without examining the judgment on the unfair sentencing of Defendant 2 and the prosecutor's defendant 2, the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed and the judgment is delivered in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The criminal facts against Defendant 1 are as stated in the above Section II.1., and the criminal facts against Defendant 2 are as stated in the above Section III.1.a., in addition to adding the part as stated in the above Section III.1.a., the remainder is the same as the criminal facts recorded in the judgment of the court below, and therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant 1]

1. Nonindicted 2’s written statement in the original trial and each of the above trials

1. Each of the original judgments made by Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 18

1. Results of field inspection by the original court;

1. Results of verification of meeting and audio recordings by the court of original judgment;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 1, 2, 5, 17, 4, 3, 15, and 18

1. The statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. Eight copies of a photograph of restoration of a mobile phone;

1. 제17대 대통령선거 사무일정(중앙선관위 출력물) 및 ◐◐당 대선경선 일정

1. A copy of the meeting list on May 26, 2009;

1. E-mail output;

1. The list and detailed data of collection of claims;

1. Deposit and withdrawal account books; and

1. Investigation report (report on the actual condition of an investigation into the place where illegal political funds are delivered);

1. Non-Indicted 17's multilateral interest

1. ★★★이 ○○건영에게 발행한 세금계산서 3부

1. A copy of a receipt and cash receipt and disbursement book (purchase at home);

1. USD 50,000 Money deposited on March 30, 2007, the result table, the check of money, the copy of cashier's checks, and the check of foreign exchange;

1. USD 176, 675 on April 30, 2007, an application for tracking results, a monetary check, and a purchase and sale of foreign exchange;

1. An application for sale and purchase of USD 103, 500 exchange funds tracking results, e.g., 27 August 27, 2007;

1. Homeplos sales slips on March 30, 2007

1. Data on the telephone conversations with Defendant 1 among the details of restoration from Nonindicted Party 1's mobile phone (number 2 omitted);

1. One copy of a promissory note in front and rear, and a statement of bank transactions related thereto; and

1. The previous list related to the funds sources on March 30, 2007, April 30, 2007, and August 2007;

1. ▼▼은행 회신 공문 팩스 사본 1부

1. ⊙⊙텔레콤 통신자료 통보 팩스 사본 1부

1. Nonindicted 19, and a statement of bank transactions between the principal and his spouse

1. A statement of the results of tracking the deposited and withdrawn resources, and a copy of evidential data;

1. Chapter 47 of the table of fund sources and the table of money exchange;

1. Investigation report (the report on confirmation of the telephone number for Defendant 1, Nonindicted 1, and related persons);

1. ○○건영, ◀◀개발, 공소외 1, 공소외 20 등의 각 은행 거래내역서

1. The details of Nonindicted 75 member's early withdrawal, the details of the receipt of the re-employment, the details of settlement, and the entry of vehicles;

[Defendant 2]

The summary of the evidence of the above criminal facts against Defendant 2 recognized by this court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to the facts constituting the crime and the choice of punishment (for the accused, against the accused);

Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (Generally, Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution (as to the defendant 2);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Collection (for the defendants):

Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act

【Calculation of Additional Collection Amount by Defendant 1】

The value of financial profits earned by Defendant 1 shall be as follows:

① Police Officers from March 31, 2007 to April 2007: US$50,000, cash KRW 150,000, and check KRW 100,000.

② Police Officers from April 30, 2007 to May 2007: US$174,000, cash KRW 130,000.

③ Police Officers from August 29, 2007 to September 2007: US$103,500, cash KRW 200 million.

The first police officer refers to the 15th day of each month, at the latest, before the 15th day of each month, so that Defendant 1 shall be entitled to the lowest exchange rate during each period in favor of Defendant 1 (based on the base rate for trade);

① From March 31, 2007 to April 15, 2007, KRW 928.70 on April 13, 2007

② From April 30, 2007 to May 15, 2007, KRW 922.40,55

③ From August 29, 2007 to September 15, 2007, KRW 928.40 on September 14, 2007

In addition, if such exchange rate is multiplied by the amount of the U.S. dollars in each of the above periods, Defendant 1 is 303,022,00 won (=928.70 x $50,000 + 922.40 x $174,000 + 922.40 x 928.40 x 103,500).

Therefore, the sum of the value of property profits acquired by Defendant 1 is KRW 883,02,00.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant 1

Defendant 1’s crime of this case is that large amount of illegal political funds worth KRW 900 million are given and received from Nonindicted 1 to 3 times in connection with the presidential candidate’s primary election. In light of the above Defendant’s status, name, process of giving and receiving, and amount of money given and received at the time of giving and receiving, Defendant 1 delivered part of the money received as above to Nonindicted 6, who is the birthee, and Nonindicted 6 used it as a lease fund. Accordingly, according to the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant 1 appears to be subject to punishment for Defendant 1’s employees, including the above circumstances, when the check of KRW 100 million issued by Nonindicted 1, through Defendant 1, was used as the full-time loan of Nonindicted 6, who was the birthee through Defendant 1, and when Defendant 1 returned KRW 200 million to Nonindicted 1, Defendant 1, even though it appears difficult for Defendant 1 to obtain it until it was paid to the court of the trial, and Defendant 1 appears to have not been subject to punishment for the above circumstances.

However, considering the fact that Defendant 1 did not have any other criminal record except due to the violation of the anti-public law, which appears to be related to a case at the time of trial, circumstances favorable to Defendant 1, and taking into account all other circumstances that form conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant 1’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence like the disposition is imposed.

2. Defendant 2

Defendant 2’s crime of this part is a non-indicted 7’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s crime of acquiring profits close to KRW 1,40,00,00 in total through the corporation card and cash provision, account transfer, vehicle and bus provision, etc. from non-indicted 1, a local constructor, for the purpose of supporting Defendant 1’s political activities. The amount of profit acquired by Defendant 2 is not smaller than the amount of profit, but it appears that Defendant 2 used the part of the amount of profit acquired for personal use unrelated to the charter party. The circumstances involved in various interest rates related to the non-indicted 1’s business are observed. Meanwhile, even if Defendant 2 could sufficiently recognize the above crime as to Defendant 2, even if it was up to the trial, it appears that Defendant 2 denied the same fact as the above crime, or did not reflect his wrong facts such as disputing the above crime, etc.

However, considering the fact that Defendant 2 had no criminal record, etc. in favor of the Defendant, the sentence identical to the disposition is imposed in full view of the following circumstances: Defendant 2’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, status of Defendant 2 at the time of the commission of the crime, and the size of the receipt.

The acquittal portion

The summary of this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 is the same as that of the above 3.1.2.b. and 3.3.2.b., this falls under the case where there is no proof of crime as seen in the above 3.2.2.b. and 3.3.2., and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in a case where it is found that Defendant 2 is guilty

[Attachment]

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung

Note 1) In Section 2, “Defendant 1” is indicated only as “Defendant 1”.

The specific contents of the original judgment are indicated in the following items. However, the part which does not affect the conclusion of the instant case among the contents of the original judgment does not refer to the part which does not affect the conclusion of the case.

(3) The lower court also states that “other facts inconsistent with the circumstances indicated in the instant case,” and “any question related to the motive for the return to statement,” etc. However, this seems to have no particular impact on the judgment of conviction or innocence in this part of the facts charged, and thus, does not separate the following and indicate the contents thereof.

4) As seen below, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of Non-Indicted 1’s statements in the original trial as a whole.

5) Nonindicted 4’s ○○ Group and Nonindicted 1’s ○○○○ appears to have a big difference in its size to the extent that it would not be compared.

Note 6) As to this, various possibilities may be considered, such as the possibility of changing only the name part of the Defendant’s contact address that Nonindicted Party 1 stored prior to the towing, into “Nonindicted Party 13H”.

Note 7) This phone number is different from the Defendant’s phone number entered Nonindicted 13 H in the cell phone of Nonindicted 1.

(8) As to the B’s book, Nonindicted 2 stated in the prosecution that “B book was prepared by Nonindicted 1 on April 2007, who was either unrelated to or inappropriate for the officialization of Nonindicted 1, 2007, by making a separate account book to obtain approval.”

Note 9) “White Data” is the same meaning as “detailed data on the list of claims collection”. In the judgment of the lower court, as indicated in the lower court, it is indicated as “White Data on the list of claims collection” but it is stated as “detailed data on the list of claims collection” in the judgment of the lower court.

Note 10) In light of the circumstances of the instant case, it is difficult to think of any third party other than Defendant and Defendant 2 as the subject of return of the said KRW 200 million.

Note 11) As examined below, Defendant 2’s use of money received from Nonindicted 1 does not aim at Defendant 2’s personal interest, but for Defendant 2’s office operation and competition activities, etc., and thus, Defendant 2 does not have a position to decide and return the said money independently.

Note 12) The prosecutor appears to have written the date and time indicated in the facts charged regarding the receipt of money and valuables on the basis of Non-Indicted 1’s prosecutor’s statement (in the face of No. 845 of the investigation record) dated April 8, 2010, “The day on which Non-Indicted 1 asked to help the Defendant and the day on which he transferred the money shall not exceed the draft.”

Note 13) According to the Credit Card sales slips (Investigation Records 1545 pages), Nonindicted 2 appears to have purchased a bridge for the above travel at 23:52.

Note 14) In Section 3, the term “Defendant 2” is indicated only as “Defendant 2”.

Note 15) In Section IV, "Defendant 2" is indicated only as "Defendant 2".

Note 16) The portion that received KRW 30 million in total on June 20, 2007, July 20, 2007, and August 20, 2007, each of the cash of KRW 10 million.

심급 사건

-서울중앙지방법원 2011.10.31.선고 2010고합1046

서울고등법원 2013.9.16.선고 2011노3260

-대법원 2015.8.20.선고 2013도11650 전원합의체

원심판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2011. 10. 31. 선고 2010고합1046 판결

본문참조조문

-반공법

-정치자금법