Defendant

Kim Ho-young (prosecutions, public trials), and the highest constitutional court (public trial)

Attorney Lee In-bok et al.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

In the facts charged of this case, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the contribution act agreement is acquitted.

The summary of the acquittal portion in the judgment against the defendant shall be publicly notified.

피고인은 2012. 4. 11. 실시된 제19대 국회의원 선거의 수원 ◎ 선거구에 □□□□당 후보자로 출마하여 당선된 사람이다.

피고인은 2011. 6.경 고향 후배인 공소외 1에게 수원시 ◁◁구 축구연합회 등 체육계 인사들을 상대로 선거운동을 해달라는 부탁을 하면서 선거운동 활동비 내지 대가를 정산하여 지급하기로 약속하였다.

이에 따라 공소외 1은 위 일시경부터 2012. 4. 11. 제19대 국회의원 선거일 무렵까지 □□□□당의 수원 ◎ 경선에 대비하여 모바일 경선참가자 또는 입당희망자를 모집하고, 수원시 ◁◁구 축구연합회 임원 등을 상대로 피고인에 대한 지지를 호소하면서 식사를 제공하고, 수원시 ◁◁구 축구연합회장기 축구대회에서 피고인으로 하여금 축사를 할 수 있도록 하고, 위 축구연합회 회장 공소외 17에게 기부행위를 하는 등의 방법으로 피고인의 당선을 위하여 선거운동을 하였다.

The Defendant, for the election of the Defendant, continuously demanded from Nonindicted 1 to pay the expenses for activities or considerations that occurred in the course of election campaign as above, or undermining the Public Official Election Act, had been urged to pay the expenses for election campaign in the form of salary, after receiving a certified copy of resident registration from Nonindicted 1, who was employed as a paid agent to the local office, and then paid the expenses for election campaign in the form of salary.

Accordingly, the Defendant, on June 6, 2012, transferred KRW 2 million from the Political Fund Expenditure Account in the name of the Defendant to the Korean bank account in the name of Nonindicted Party 1 to KRW 2 million in the name of June 2, 2012, and from August 6, 2012 in the same manner, transferred KRW 2 million in the name of payment on July 7, 2012 to each of the following methods:

이로써 피고인은 수원 ◎ 선거구에 국회의원 후보로 출마한 자신의 제19대 국회의원 선거운동과 관련하여 선거사무원으로 신고하지 아니한 채 위와 같이 선거운동을 한 공소외 1에게 400만 원의 금품을 제공하였다.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each of the legal statements made by the witness Nonindicted 1, 17, 3, 18, 19, 6, 5, and 15 (the statement made by the witness Nonindicted 1, which read as follows, is admissible as evidence of the part of the statement that “the statement made by dividing the conversation with the defendant, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 5 with the same content as the recording file in which the conversation is recorded.”

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused and the non-indicted 1 and 6 on each prosecutor's protocol (the part that "it is the fact that the conversation recorded in the recording file is divided" among the statements written by non-indicted 1 is inadmissible as evidence) is inadmissible.

1. Some of the written statements made by the prosecution against Nonindicted 3, 14, 13, 15, 20, 21, 4, 17, 22, 23, 5, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 11, and 32

1. Each statement prepared by Nonindicted 33, 11, and 34

1. 공직선거법위반 혐의에 대한 수사의뢰, 선거법위반행위 조사경위서, 각 문답서(공소외 1), 공소외 1 통장사본, 영수증, 휴대폰 문자메시지 사진, 확인서, 영수증, 공소외 1 임명장, 경선참여 리스트, □□□□당 국민경선 선거인단 참여자 명단, 기존 추천자 중 추가 등록자 현황, 각 문답서(공소외 17), 각 문답서(공소외 13, 15, 14, 33, 22, 5, 4, 6), 지역사무소 배치도, 공소외 4, 1 급여지급내역, 피고인 국회의원 사무실 배치도, 녹취서(피고인, 공소외 1 통화), 수사보고(선관위 추가 자료 첨부), 예비후보자 등록신청서 및 변경신청서, 선거사무원 신고서, 선거사무소 설치신고서, 정치자금 수입, 지출 내역, □□□□당 수원시 ◁◁구 정당선거사무소 설치 신고 내역 등, 국회의원 피고인 후원회 예금계좌내역, 국회의원 피고인 예금계좌내역, 통신사 회신자료, 수사보고(제보자 공소외 1 소환 불투명), 수사보고(제보자 공소외 1 주거지 사전 답사), 수사보고(제보자 공소외 1 소환불응), 수사보고(선관위 담당자 진술청취), 수사보고(별건 피고인의 핸드폰 번호 확인 및 피의자신문조서 첨부 보고), 수사보고(선관위 조사 상황 녹음 파일 첨부), USB 1점, 공소외 1의 통화내역서, 수사보고(수첩 사본), 수사보고(공소외 1의 사무실 압수수색영장 집행결과), 농협 금융거래내역, 금융거래실적증명서, 수사보고(2011. 9. 18. 제22회 ◁◁구 연합회장기 축구대회 예선 개최사실 확인 보고), 위 대회 관련 사진 출력물, 현장조사보고서, 압수목록교부서, 압수수색장소 데스크탑PC 추출파일 CD 2장, 수사보고(압수수색영장 집행결과 보고), 현장조사보고서, 압수수색 장소 외장 HDD 추출한 CD 2장, 확인서, 정치자금회계 실무교육실시 통지, 정치자금회계 실무교육 실시결과보고, 정치자금회계 실무교육 참석자등록부, 정치자금회계 실무교육 사진 자료, 정치자금회계 실무요령 등 안내를 위한 교육 참석 안내, 정치자금회계교육 등 참석자등록부, 수사보고(공소외 1 명의 금융계좌 추적 필요성 보고), 접견녹음파일 등 송부, 수용자접견현황 사본, 녹취록 작성 보고, 녹취록, 수사보고(공소외 30과 피의자 피고인, 공소외 6간의 통화 내역), 피의자 피고인, 공소외 6의 발신, 역발신 내역 중 공소외 30 관련 내역, 수사보고(남부경찰서 유치장 접견부 첨부), 수사보고(공소외 30 핸드폰 확인 보고), 문자메시지, 수사보고(압수수색영장 집행결과 보고), 수사보고(금융거래정보제공회신), 외환은행 회신문서, 수사보고(음식물 제공 기부행위 관련 범죄일람표), 수사보고(녹취록 작성 보고), 녹취록

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

Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Determination on the admissibility of the evidence at issue

A. Admissibility of evidence of the recording file, etc. by Nonindicted 1’s recording

(1) The issues of this part

The prosecutor submits each evidence of Non-Indicted 1’s legal statement and protocol of interrogation of the prosecution to the effect that Non-Indicted 1 recorded a telephone call between the defendant and Non-Indicted 6, one file in which Non-Indicted 1 recorded a conversation with Non-Indicted 5, one recording file in which Non-Indicted 1 recorded a recording of the above recording file with Non-Indicted 5, and one recording of the above recording file, and one recorded a recording of the above conversation with Non-Indicted 1 as evidence of guilt, and the defendant asserts that the above evidence has no admissibility of evidence. Accordingly, the issue is whether the admissibility of evidence

(2) Relevant legal principles

(A) Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that evidence collected in breach of due process cannot be admitted as evidence. Meanwhile, if the Constitution declaring due process and warrant requirement regarding search and seizure to ensure fundamental human rights, and the normative force of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides detailed standards for search and seizure procedures, is firm so that the ideology of protecting individual rights can be realized harmoniously, it shall not be admitted as evidence for conviction in principle because it does not follow the lawful procedures provided for in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act. The most effective and clear response measures to restrain illegal search and seizure conducted by an investigation agency and prevent recurrence may not be admitted as evidence for conviction, as well as secondary evidence obtained based on it. In order to determine whether to acknowledge admissibility of seized evidence without complying with the procedure provided for in the Act, it is an important purpose and ideology that the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act seeks to achieve the legitimate realization of penal authority through the examination of substantive truth, and thus, it cannot be seen that there is evidence collection of evidence in violation of the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act merely based on the purpose and purport of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(나) 선거관리위원회는 선거와 국민투표의 공정한 관리 및 정당에 관한 사무를 관장하는 것을 목적으로 하고( 선거관리위원회법 제1조 ), 각급선거관리위원회의 위원·직원은 직무수행 중에 선거법위반행위를 발견한 때에는 중지·경고 또는 시정명령을 하여야 하며, 그 위반행위가 선거의 공정을 현저하게 해치는 것으로 인정되거나 중지·경고 또는 시정명령을 불이행하는 때에는 관할수사기관에 수사의뢰 또는 고발할 수 있도록 하고 있으며( 같은 법 제14조의2 ), 일정한 선거범위반 행위에 대하여 과태료를 직접 부과하고( 공직선거법 제261조 ), 각급선거관리위원회 위원·직원은 선거범죄에 관하여 그 범죄의 혐의가 있다고 인정되거나, 후보자(경선후보자를 포함한다)·예비후보자·선거사무장·선거연락소장 또는 선거사무원이 제기한 그 범죄의 혐의가 있다는 소명이 이유 있다고 인정되는 경우 또는 현행범의 신고를 받은 경우에는 그 장소에 출입하여 관계인에 대하여 질문·조사를 하거나 관련 서류 기타 조사에 필요한 자료의 제출을 요구할 수 있고, 선거범죄 현장에서 선거범죄에 사용된 증거물품으로서 증거인멸의 우려가 있다고 인정되는 때에는 조사에 필요한 범위 안에서 현장에서 이를 수거할 수 있으며, 이 경우 당해 선거관리위원회위원·직원은 수거한 증거물품을 그 관련된 선거범죄에 대하여 고발 또는 수사의뢰한 때에는 관계수사기관에 송부하고, 그러하지 아니한 때에는 그 소유·점유·관리하는 자에게 지체없이 반환하여야 하며, 누구든지 위 규정에 의한 장소의 출입을 방해하여서는 아니되며 질문·조사를 받거나 자료의 제출을 요구받은 자는 이에 응하여야 하고, 각급선거관리위원회위원·직원은 선거범죄 조사와 관련하여 관계자에게 질문·조사하기 위하여 필요하다고 인정되는 때에는 선거관리위원회에 동행 또는 출석할 것을 요구할 수 있으며, 선거의 자유와 공정을 현저히 해할 우려가 있는 이 법에 위반되는 행위가 눈앞에 행하여지고 있거나, 행하여질 것이 명백하다고 인정되는 경우에는 그 현장에서 행위의 중단 또는 예방에 필요한 조치를 할 수 있도록 규정하고 있고( 같은 법 제272조의2 ), 한편 헌법 제12조 제3항 본문은 동조 제1항 과 함께 적법절차원리의 일반조항에 해당하는 것으로서, 형사절차상의 영역에 한정되지 않고 입법, 행정 등 국가의 모든 공권력의 작용에는 절차상의 적법성뿐만 아니라 법률의 구체적 내용도 합리성과 정당성을 갖춘 실체적인 적법성이 있어야 한다는 적법절차의 원칙을 헌법의 기본원리로 명시하고 있는 것인바( 헌법재판소 1992. 12. 24. 선고 92헌가8 결정 등 참조), 위와 같은 선거관리위원회의 목적, 선거범죄 혐의에 대한 조사 권한, 수사기관에 대한 고발 또는 수사의뢰시 수사자료를 송부하는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 비록 선거관리위원회는 독자적인 수사권을 보유한 수사기관은 아니지만, 선거관리위원회가 수사에 준하는 행정조사권한을 보유한 기관으로서 공직선거법에 의한 선거범죄 조사를 함에 있어 당연히 적법절차를 준수하여야 할 의무가 있는 이상, 선거범죄의 조사과정에서 위법한 조사를 통하여 증거자료를 취득하였다면, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피조사자에 대한 재판에서 당해 증거자료는 유죄의 증거로 사용할 수 될 수 없다고 할 것이다.

(3) Facts of recognition

According to each evidence of the judgment, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) Around May 2012, Non-Indicted 1 expressed a strong complaint as to Non-Indicted 1’s failure to make any particular compensation even though he had carried out an election campaign for the Defendant’s election while drinking and drinking, and Non-Indicted 12, who was able to hear this, recommended Non-Indicted 1 to inform him of the above fact to the election commission.

(B) On June 22, 2012, upon introduction by Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 1 expressed his/her intention to inform Nonindicted 35’s chief director of the Gyeonggi-do Election Commission of the fact of violation of the election law that “the Defendant provided money or goods to Nonindicted 1 in connection with the election campaign.” Accordingly, Nonindicted 36 and 3, the competent officer of the Gyeonggi-do Election Commission, who belongs to the Gyeonggi-do Election Commission, commenced an investigation against Nonindicted 1 on the charge of violation of the election law against the Defendant. However, even if Non-Indicted 1’s statement commences a regular investigation on the grounds that it is abstract and there is no evidence to prove it, Nonindicted 1’s statement was not effective, and the answer was

(C) At the time, Nonindicted 3 explained to Nonindicted 1 that “the person who reported an election crime shall be mitigated or exempted from punishment by a special case for self-denunciation under the Public Official Election Act, and may receive a reward (Nonindicted 3 stated that he/she deleted the process of the above investigation with Nonindicted 1, although he/she recorded it with Nonindicted 1).”

(D) On June 29, 2012, Nonindicted 3 heard Nonindicted 1’s words “the Defendant shall deposit the money between him and her.” On July 2, 2012, Nonindicted 3 demanded Nonindicted 1 to attend an election commission and undergo an investigation on the following day after hearing Nonindicted 1’s words “on the deposit of the money between him and her.”

(마) 경기도선거관리위원회 소속 6급 주사 공소외 2는 2012. 7. 3. 공소외 1로 하여금 선거부정감시단 직원과 함께 통장정리를 하도록 하여 피고인이 입금한 위 200만 원의 내역을 확인하게 한 다음 선거부정감시단 소속 공소외 37의 입회하에 공소외 1을 상대로 피고인의 선거범죄혐의에 관한 조사를 실시하여 그 내용을 문답서로 작성하였고, 공소외 1은 조사 과정에서 “피고인이 2011. 6.경 선거운동을 도와달라고 하면서 그 대가로 200만 원 내지 300만 원 정도의 월급을 준다고 하였다. 피고인은 2012. 6. 초경 ◁◁구 축구대회에서 진술인(공소외 1)에게 ’월급을 줄테니 주민등록등본을 국회의원 사무소에 밀봉하여 제출하라‘고 해서 갖다 주었다. 진술인은 2012. 7. 2. 피고인으로부터 200만 원을 입금받았고, 관련 대화내용을 녹음해 두었다”라는 취지로 진술하였고, 피고인 명의로 200만 원이 입금된 내역이 기재된 공소외 1 명의의 통장{우리은행 (계좌번호 생략)} 사본을 제출하였다.

(F) Nonindicted 2 divided the following dialogues in the course of investigating Nonindicted 1.

The text: there is evidence of KRW 2 million, for example, that "we can do so from the six months immediately preceding," and we can see that "we can do so." If we can see it properly, we can see that we can see, if we can see that we can see, I can't we can't see, how we can see, I can't see.

Answer: Examples.

sentence: from the standpoint of the person.

The answer: The author argues that the author does not assert any argument. The author argues that the author does not know the fact that he is flat, and gives it a flat.

5.0 Doese, e.g.

Answer: Examples.

The text: 2 million won itself, for example, is the highest price that was raised from June to June of the year from the end of election. It is a bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb, which is the fact.

The answer : Does this content have been divided into two times before the election, stating that “This content has no absolute opinion, even if the communication had been induced, it is necessary to speak because the two sides were one time even if the communication had been induced.”

The text : For example, if us “? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .

The answer: therefore, the No. 200,000,000 won, is asked to be “influenced,” thereby making a recording. However, it should not be said that the recording has been made with a Handphone, and that the recording has been made with a Handphone. However, it is essential to note that it does not meet the needs.

문 : 이렇게 나와야죠. 왜냐하면 이렇게 나와야지. 내가 받을 돈이 지금 밥 사준 게 1,000만 원이라고 그랬잖아, 이게.

Answer: Examples.

door: Doing.

Answer: Examples.

The text: 10 million won will be paid within the past six months, and then long as you do so.

Response: 30,000,000 Won Sheet.

L, : 30 million won, but I am special.

Answer: Examples.

A. Doing: He must have since "Jon". "I will pay a salary until July 1, 2000?" If we have a flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue, so far, I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see if I would like to do so. I would like to say that I would like to say that the recording was made.

The answer: I need to do so if you come to do so, and even if we do not do so, we need to do so, we need to do so, and we need to do so, that we have today, the election secretary, or the person who is the president of the election bureau. Therefore, we need to do so only once in the office. So we need to see why we need to see “I am???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

No. 300,000

Written Answer: the preparation of a document

Note : Provided, That “this in 10 million won has been done so.”

Answer: Examples

The text: “I see and now I have 30 million won.”

Answer: Examples

H. : Dol, however, Doll?

Answer : Doz. Doz. Doz.

H. : Doing up to one year, “Doing the salary, if so, for three years?” Doing a year?

Answer: 12 million won each.

L, : 12 million won, L, I't am, but 2 million won.

Answer: Examples

L. L. : A. 2,400 L.C. per month.

Preferreds: 2,400 examples.

The text : Then, she should ask her " how she can put it into a house for a period of 2 years?" and she should see her. The her flusium "I will pay a salary so long as she enters a house for a period of 30 million won." her flusium she should enter a brusium.

The answer: I will know. I will make a recording.

In addition, if so, the band-and-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-beband-be

The answer: I will, if so, record it.

(1) The term “in-house” means “in-house, i.e., n., n.e., n., n.e., n. at any time? n.e., n.s.? at any time? n.e., n.s.? n.s.? at any time? n.s.? n.s.s., n.e., n.s. n.s.s.s.).

St. : Top, the PPPP.

L. : The certificate of special character must be given, but it must be given.

Answer: Examples.

door: regardless of the duplication, the copy shall be made, regardless of whether the copy is made, and the duplication shall be made.

The answer : however, it is necessary to make duplication difficult, which is so attached. how to copy.

No. : No one shall be reproduced by taking a deduction from one head.

The answer: E.W. E.W. E. B. E. E. B. E. E.M. ter. J.M.

L. Do not: Do not receive, for example, any money may not be received from the other hand, but in the end, since we now have been the subject of our discussion, we do not see, for example, how we have “ how we have written KRW 10 million.0 million.”

J. : Dok Dok.

Note : She must keep a record at that time. Ashre, as stated in the “I am, I am bling for a fewday per month, and do so.”

Answer: Examples.

door: Maternate, content itself, etc. that have been required to do so.

The answer: I will make a recording.

: Does ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?.......

The answer: One written form is also recorded, but not one in his own form, and one in his own name and one in his special account.

The text: Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don.

The answer: I must not speak clearly. I will be able to say that we should be able to ever.

- does not: Not, but may be.

답 : 그런데 저하고는 이야기를 다 하거든요. ▷▷호텔 건도 다 이야기했거든요.

sentence: Examples?

답 : ▷▷호텔 사우나 건도 다 이야기했었고. ▷▷호텔 사우나 건도 주기로 했는데 아직 안 준 거에요. 그건 나한테 이야기한 거 아니고 연합회 회장들한테 직접.

Does: Doese 1 year's worth per hour?

The answer: at the risk of its mother.

Documents: Does not fluor of non-rice?

The answer: Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Lyn. Syn. Lyn. Syn. Syn. Syn. Lyn. Syn. Lyn. Syn. Lyn. Syn. Lyn. Syn. Syn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn. Lyn

Documents: Sound Sheet?

The answer: The recording is immediately required. It is the breath of the Handphone. When the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the day

문 : “형님, 제가 알다시피 6월달부터 내가 쓴 돈이 지금 이거잖아. 알지 않냐. 형님이 다달이 200만 원씩 준다고 했잖아. 그런데 아직 안 줬잖아. 총 합해서 3,000만 원 돼”, 예를 들어서.

Answer: Examples

The text: “ how to be done? at once, at once, at one time? or at once, a few years will be given in fluenites?” In this case, brusing a brut brut can be said to be brutly brut by brutly, “I do not have money in frus, and will brut in frut in salary by making it a salary by way of no money, and by making it a salary in frut.e., brut., home.

The answer: I will make a recording. Telecommunications.

The text: Does it be the same as the proper evidence, when we look at, and when we see, we can see again again, and see that it will be repeated later, and we will not see that it will be definitely cut. The present time now, we now have to do so by repeating once again. Whether it is possible to flickly flickly, and then may flickly flickly flickly, and then may flickly flickly flick. In other words, we will ask about the case of providing meals to officers of the Korean Federation of the Japanese Federation of the Japanese Federation of the Japanese Federation of the Japanese Federation of the Japanese Federation of the Japanese Federation.

(not less than 54 to 59 evidence records)

(사) 경기도선거관리위원회 소속 공소외 3, 36은 2012. 8. 6. 피고인 명의로 공소외 1 명의의 계좌에 다시 200만 원이 입금된 사실을 확인하고, 2012. 8. 9. 공소외 1을 상대로 ‘◁◁구축구연합회장기 축구대회 기념품 지급, 축구연합회 임원들과의 식사모임, 피고인의 공소외 1에 대한 선거운동 대가 지급’에 관하여 조사하고 그 내용을 문답서로 작성한 다음, 축구연합회 임원들과 식사하면서 지출한 영수증을 제출받아 사본을 작성하고, 공소외 1이 2012. 8. 6. 국회의원 지역사무소를 방문하여 사무국장 공소외 5, 사무원 공소외 38과 사이에 나눈 대화를 녹음한 파일을 제출받았다.

(h) On August 14, 2012, Nonindicted 3 submitted from Nonindicted 1 “the details of use of activity expenses related to the Defendant candidate’s election campaign” and a copy of the receipt to prove it, and drafted a written confirmation of the use and copy of the receipt (Evidence No. 80 of the Evidence Record).

(i) On August 6, 2012, when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5, who recorded Nonindicted 1’s cell phone number, opened and listened to the recording file of the conversation that was divided by the Defendant’s local office on August 6, 2012, Nonindicted 3 discovered the fact that the conversations between Nonindicted 1, Defendant, and Nonindicted 6 were recorded during the aforementioned mobile phone period from May 29, 2012 to August 6, 2012, Nonindicted 3 asked Nonindicted 1 to read “or would have any special content”, and asked Nonindicted 1 to answer Nonindicted 1 to read “or would have any content?” while Nonindicted 1 asked Nonindicted 5 to present a copy of the recording file of the conversation with Nonindicted 5, who inspected both Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 6’s telephone number (or preparation of confirmation document, etc. regarding the recording file, etc.).

(j) However, on September 13, 2012, Nonindicted Party 1 visited the Gyeonggi-do Election Commission and demanded Nonindicted 3 to reverse the previous statement by stating that “The part related to the price for commemorative gifts is an exaggerationd statement.” Nonindicted 3 attempted to make a telephone call with Nonindicted 1, but was aware of the change of Nonindicted 1’s mobile phone period during the process of exchanging conversations with Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, who confirmed that Nonindicted 1 had been changed. Nonindicted 1, who then asked Nonindicted 3, “I lost,” and thereafter, Nonindicted 3, who stored and stored Nonindicted 1’s telephone tape file without previous confirmation, and then recovered it, considered that it is considerably consistent with Nonindicted 1’s statement, and then, he tried to make a telephone call with Nonindicted 1, on the ground that “I had asked how this call was made in any way at the time of receiving a written confirmation.”

(카) 경기도선거관리위원회는 2012. 8. 16.부터 2012. 8. 30.까지 공소외 33, 13, 22, 17, 14, 15 등의 ◁◁구축구연합회의 전·현직 임원들 및 공소외 5, 4 등 피고인의 지역사무소 직원들에 대한 조사를 마치고, 2012. 9. 4. 공소외 6에 대한 조사 및 2012. 9. 13. 피고인에 대한 조사를 각 마치고 각 문답서를 작성하였다.

(l) The main contents of Nonindicted Party 1’s monetary recording files are as follows.

① around 17:00 on May 29, 2012, Nonindicted 6, and 1

공소외 1 : “제가 저번에 말씀드렸다 아닙니까, 형님. 돈 한푼도 못 받아가지고 준다고 한 거 한푼도 안줘가지고 그때.. 애들 학원비도 내야 되고 공과금을 내야 하는데 돈을 준다고 했는데 안 줘가지고, 경선 끝나고 준다고 했는데 안 줬잖아요”

Non-Indicted 6: “I am special????????????????????

Non-Indicted. 1: “Irndon Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Don Dondo Dondo Dondondo Do

Non-Indicted 6: “Ampid .. its forum thickness”

② On May 29, 2012, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1

Defendant : “I have no telephone from home and receive documents. I have no telephone from the phone at this time. I have the phone at this time. I have the phone at this time. I have to make a certified copy of the register document and to see that I have to do so. I have to do so in the case of internal contact.”

③ On May 31, 2012, Nonindicted 1, and 6

Non-Indicted 1: “Non-Indicted 1: “Isn't have a certified copy of his place of origin, and send documents to the head of the office. There is no person, and there is no telephone, and there is no telephone, and there is a short call, and a short phone phone. Licker is also off.”

공소외 6 : “응 내가 다시 이야기할게. ◇의원(피고인)이 뭐 얘기하던데 가르쳐줄라고”

Non-Indicted 1: “I will know what I have? I have a telephone. I need to have a telephone. I will look at the office-type (Defendant). I will not yet communicate. I do not have any contact.”

④ On June 4, 2012, Nonindicted 1, and 6

공소외 1 : “그러면 가면 뵐수 있어요? 형님”

Non-Indicted 6: “I have no gold, and there should be more than 30 minutes for a short period of more than 3:00 p.m.”

⑤ June 4, 2012: Nonindicted 6, and 1

Non-Indicted 1: “I am you know that the Geman-type (the Defendant) sent the documents to the office room and sent the office room promptly. I do not have any call that we continue to do so. So I do not have any time. So we need to be called where I had been present at the events for which they had been placed. I have been present at any time. And I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am we am we am you we am we am

Nonindicted 6: “In response one time, and if so, as soon as possible.”

Non-Indicted 1: “Irre, Irre, Irre? Irre? Irre? Irre? Irre? Irre? Irre? Irre? Irre?? Irre?? I now???? I am??? I am???? I am?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Non-Indicted 6: “In response, I have been aware of it.”

Non-Indicted. 1: “Libibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibibi, at any time, Libibibi, Libibibi, Libibibi,

Non-Indicted 6: “Ashe was known”

공소외 1 : “근데 아무 그런 것도 없고 진짜 너무 그리고 엊그저께 형님하고 저하고 ◇◇이형(피고인)하고 세명이서 있을 때 ◇◇이형이 그랬잖아요. 그건 약속한거니깐 내가 줄 거다. 했는데 30일날 뭐 그 ▷▷호텔 대표이사 사임하면 뭐 돈 해준다는데 연락도 없습니다. 저는 ◇◇이형한테 그 뭐 사실 국회에 가 있고 개원 때문에 바쁜데 하기도 그렇고 해서 사실 못하고 있는데. 전화 오길 기다리고 있는데 전화 한 통도 없고 사무장도 안 오고 아무도 안 왔어요, 형님. 너무 서운하잖아요. 그렇게 해줬는데”

Nonindicted 6: “Embling Nonindicted 6”

공소외 1 : “이번에 수원시 체육대회 할 때에도 저 저번주에도 축사 그것도 물어보길래 그래도 형님 의원되었는데 해줄건 해줘야 되지 않겠습니까 해서 그것도 해줬잖아요. 그렇게 해줬는데 불구하고 아무것도 없으니깐 사람들이 만나는 사람들마다 저한테 물어볼 수 있잖아요. ‘야 너네 형 국회의원까지 도와달라해서 도와줬는데 인사 뭐 뭣도 없냐’ 이런 식의 이야기하잖아요. 사람들이 농담삼아 하는 말이긴 하지만은. 제 입장에서는 형이 나한테 뭐 진짜 진솔하게 해줬으면 좋겠어요”

(6) June 5, 2012: Nonindicted 19, 6

Non-Indicted. 1: “I am h. L. N. N. N. L. L. I am h. I am h. I am h. L. L. I am g., L. L., I am.....

Non-Indicted 6: "Meababababs"

7. On June 10, 2012, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1

Defendant: “Along with a copy sent to the office, I am special? The remainder is due? I am special? I am special if I am special, I am special. I am special. I am special if I am special, I am special. I am special. I am special. I am special. I am special. I am. I am special. I am

Non-Indicted. 1: “Non.”

Defendant: “A special registration must be made. A special registration cannot be made. A special registration cannot be made. A special registration cannot be made. A special registration cannot be made.

8. June 28, 2012 16:08 Defendant and Nonindicted 1

It is impossible to call again because currency is not possible.

9) On June 28, 2012, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1

Defendant: “I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special? I am special. I am special? I am special? I am

(10) June 29, 2012: Defendant and Nonindicted 1

Defendant “I am at the end of the week, and I am at the end of the week. I am at the end of the 30-day day. The last day shall be the day. The 30-day seal is affixed, 31-day seal is affixed, and the 31-day seal is affixed.”

(11) June 30, 2012: the Defendant, Nonindicted 1, on June 30, 2012

Defendant: “The Secretary-General of the Regional Office of Affairs has certain days, which is likely to be under his jurisdiction, and the width monthly pay,” and “ If the Secretary-General of the Regional Office of Affairs and Affairs has harmed and known the currency, the Secretary-General of the Regional Office of Affairs and the President of the Regional Office of Affairs and the President of the Regional Office of Affairs and the President of the Office of Secretary-General of the Regional Office of Affairs and the President of the Office of Information and

(12) July 2, 2012 15:53 Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1

The purport that office is in the process of a party affairs audit;

(13) On July 2, 2012 19:08 Nonindicted 5, and 1

Non-Indicted 5: “Irre that Irre you will am to his office. Irre that Irrre you must do so. Irre that Irre you will be able to deal with the Lrrrrre's office's lab and Prr.''s wages.

(14) On July 17, 2012: the Defendant and Nonindicted 1

The defendant's "I am, I am about how I am and I am about I am about I am, because I am different from I am about I am about I am. I am about I am about I am about I am. I am about I am about I am. I am about I am, I am about I am about I am about I am about I am about I am. I am about I am about I am about I am about I am. I am about I am about I am about I am. I am you will am we am we am about I am about I am. I am we am about I am about I am about I am. I am we am about I am and I am you am about I am. I am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we am we

(15) August 1, 2012: the Defendant, and Nonindicted 1

Nonindicted 1: “Non-Indicted 1: “The money is made up of which payment is made, and the monthly salary is inside of which payment has been made.”

Defendant: “I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am? I am am? I am? I am am? I am am. I am am am. I am am am. I am am? I am? I am. I am? I am am. I am am.? I am am.

On August 6, 2012, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1

Defendant : Does it cooperate with one stamped, and each other, and affix a seal on the documents required by the Secretary-General. The stamp is stamped, and it is difficult for the Secretary-General to receive the stamp, and the documents were sent to him. The document is called to include money, and the document is issued promptly, and the answer is given to him. He will come to the post on the last day.”

(파) 수원시◁◁구선거관리위원회는 경기도선거관리위원회의 조사자료를 넘겨받아 2012. 9. 18. 수원지방검찰청 공안부에 피고인 및 공소외 6을 ‘자원봉사자에 대한 대가 제공, 축구연합회 임원 등에 대한 음식물·물품 제공’의 혐의에 관하여 수사를 의뢰하면서, 조사경위서(2012. 7. 3. 제보자의 신고로 인지하였다고 기재되어 있다), 피고인을 포함한 사건 관계자들에 대한 문답서, 공소외 1의 통화내용 녹취록, 녹취파일 CD 1장, 피고인의 녹취서 등을 첨부하였다.

(4) Individual determination on admissibility of evidence

(A) Admissibility of evidence of the recorded files after July 3, 2012 ( Making4)

According to the above facts, when it is determined that Non-Indicted 1's statement was not direct evidence to prove that Non-Indicted 1's statement was paid in return for election campaign, Non-Indicted 2's employee of the Gyeonggi-do election commission, after conducting an investigation on the premise that Non-Indicted 1's statement was paid in return for election campaign, he explained in detail that Non-Indicted 1's statement was demanded to be recorded and submitted by Non-Indicted 1 who is expected to be given a monetary reward, and whether to induce the statement necessary for proving facts of suspicion by questioning the defendant without merely demanding submission of evidence, or allow the defendant to ask certain questions, and the specific contents of the statement to be drawn from the defendant (amount and period of payment to be provided by the defendant) that should be presented to the defendant, as evidence to be presented to the defendant, and that Non-Indicted 1 should take care of the defendant to reverse the statement later according to the above instruction of Non-Indicted 2, it is the same as that the investigative agency itself created evidence against criminal charges, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence of the defendant's or investigative agency's evidence.

(B) Probative value of the file recorded on July 3, 2012 (i) or (iii)

(1) An investigative agency may, if necessary for a criminal investigation, seize, search, or inspect evidence by a warrant issued by a judge of a district court upon a request from the judge of the competent case (Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act), only when there is a circumstance likely to suspect that a criminal suspect committed an offense and is deemed related to the relevant case (Article 215 of the same Act): Provided, That where the subject matter of seizure is a computer disc or other similar information storage device (hereinafter referred to as "information storage device, etc.") and the subject matter of seizure is a computer disc or other similar information storage device (hereinafter referred to as "information storage device, etc."), the investigative agency may seize such information storage device, etc. if it is deemed impossible to output or duplicate within a specified scope or considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of seizure (Articles 219 and 106 (3) of the same Act), deliver a list to the owner, possessor, custodian, or any equivalent person, and deliver it to the owner or any related person, and the purport of strict seizure and seizure of the subject matter in accordance with Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

② According to the above facts, Nonindicted Party 3 discovered the remaining files of Nonindicted Party 1’s recording in the process of listening to Nonindicted Party 5’s conversation with Nonindicted Party 1 on August 6, 2012, and copied them to Nonindicted Party 1’s computer with Nonindicted Party 1’s consent. There was no fact that Nonindicted Party 1 prepared and delivered written confirmation regarding what kind of files in the process of copying Nonindicted Party 1’s recording, and Nonindicted Party 1 stated that “I would have heard for the first time before the prosecution by copying them during the prosecution’s investigation process,” and that Nonindicted Party 1 could not be used as evidence of the offense of violation of the Public Official Election Act, even if the aforementioned recording files were provided to Nonindicted Party 1 and the prosecutor did not appear to have been subject to the prosecution’s consent to the seizure of Nonindicted Party 1’s original recording files, despite the fact that Nonindicted Party 1’s consent to the seizure of the recorded files was insufficient.” As such, it appears that there was no doubt that Nonindicted Party 1’s previous evidence was insufficient to prove that it had been used as evidence of the offense.

(C) Evidence of the second evidence (each record, Nonindicted 1’s legal statement, and protocol of examination of prosecution suspect against Nonindicted 1)

As long as Nonindicted 1’s admissibility of a file recording conversations with the Defendant, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 5 is not recognized, each recording book recording the conversations of the said recording file and Nonindicted 1’s interrogation protocol of the same content is also based on the evidence illegally collected, since it is also based on the prosecutor’s evidence that the existence of the recording file and the conversation recorded in the said recording file were recorded in this court as a witness of the Defendant case and the Defendant, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 5 were recorded in the said recording file.

B. Admissibility of evidence of Nonindicted 7’s legal statement and prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 7

Nonindicted 7’s statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the person who is a statement (Nonindicted 7) to acknowledge the fact of the offense of the Defendant,” is a full-time statement, the content of which is another person’s statement, other than the Defendant, on the date of trial, and cannot be made due to death, illness, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and it may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state (Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). As long as Nonindicted 1, who is the person making the original statement, was present and testified in this court, the above legal statement of Nonindicted 7 is not admissible as evidence, and the prosecutor’s statement stating Nonindicted 7’s statement is not admissible as evidence unless the requirements of Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act are satisfied.

C. Admissibility of evidence of each written reply to Nonindicted 1 by the election commission

(1) The notification of the right to refuse to make a statement to prevent a suspect from being forced to make a statement by effectively guaranteeing the suspect's right to refuse to make a statement. Considering the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement and the practical meaning of the notification of the right to refuse to make a statement, it is reasonable to view that the status of a suspect subject to notification by an investigative agency is recognized when the investigative agency recognizes the criminal charge against a person subject to investigation and commences an investigation. Therefore, even if the right to refuse to make a statement was not notified to a person who is not a suspect, the admissibility of such statement is not denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8125, Nov. 10, 201)

(2) According to the evidence in its holding, each of the answer forms in this case was prepared by Nonindicted 1 while voluntarily attending the election commission and making statements in the form of information, and Nonindicted 3 stated in this court that “In the absence of notification of the right to refuse to make a statement, it can only be known if he/she does not refuse to make a statement,” Nonindicted 1 is subject to exemption or reduction of punishment pursuant to the special provision on the self-denunciation of the Public Official Election Act, and there was no evidence to prove that there was a circumstance such as meeting, coercion, coercion, etc. in the course of investigation with Nonindicted 1, the election commission has no legal authority to investigate the crime independently; the election commission does not distinguish the identity of the suspect or witness while investigating the violation of the Public Official Election Act; the election commission prepared the answer form in the same procedure without distinguishing the identity of the suspect or witness; even if the election commission prepared the answer form without giving prior notification to Nonindicted 1, it cannot be viewed as having prepared the answer form by an illegal administrative investigation, and it cannot be viewed that it was a suspect after being prosecuted by a prosecutor.

(3) Each written answer of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by a public official belonging to the election commission of the election commission to Nonindicted Party 1 is a document in which the statement of a person other than the defendant is written outside of the investigative agency, and the signature or seal of the person who made the statement is affixed, and when it is proved to be genuine by the statement of the person who made the statement at the trial date (main sentence of Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the public trial records of this case, it is recognized that Nonindicted Party 1 appeared as a witness of the case on the second trial date and the establishment of the above written answer is true, and thus, each written answer

D. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant as to the part of the evidence which is not admissible as evidence is with merit and the defendant's above argument about the part of the evidence which is admitted as evidence is without merit

2. Whether a prosecution is unlawful due to illegal administrative investigations similar to the investigation into naval ships;

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant asserts that the collection of evidence by the competent election commission constitutes a naval investigation, and that the admissibility of evidence is denied, as well as that the prosecution by the prosecutor based on the above evidence is unlawful.

B. Relevant legal principles

It is unlawful for an investigative agency to arrest a criminal by inducing a person who does not have the original criminal intent to commit a crime. In a specific case, whether it constitutes an illegal crime should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the type and nature of the relevant crime, the status and role of the inducer, the details and method of inducing the induced, the response of the inducedr, the criminal history of inducing the induced, and the illegality of the inducing act itself. An induced directly related to an investigative agency appeals to the relief or appraisal of the induced person by using personal friendly relationship with the induced person, or by using monetary or psychological pressure or threat, or excessively interfering with the induced person by inducing the induced person to commit a crime by excessively presenting the method of the crime or by providing the money to be used for the crime, etc. However, it is not allowed for the induced person to act as an illegal vessel investigation, but it is not allowed for the induced person to act as an illegal vessel investigation. Even if the induced person did not directly have a relation with the investigative agency, it is not considered that the induced person requested to commit a crime by 208 or 2400 criminal intent.

C. Determination

In this case, in order to secure evidence to prove the defendant's crime, the public officials of the Election Commission and the public officials of the Election Commission have created evidence through Non-Indicted 1. The Election Commission immediately discontinued the case of violation of the Public Official Election Act when finding the case, and the election commission has the duty to comply with the above duty by impliedly refusing the payment of the defendant's election campaign price despite the duty to inform the defendant of the violation. However, at the time, there was no evidence to prove the payment of the defendant's wage as the payment of election campaign price, and there was no evidence to oppose, such as the registration as a paid agent, etc., but it was difficult to conclude that the defendant's act was an illegal act, and the Public Official Election Act has to punish the defendant as the promise to pay the price for election campaign. Thus, the defendant can be deemed to have already started to have committed the crime of violation of the Election Act. In full view of the facts that the defendant cannot be deemed to have caused the defendant's criminal intent due to the creation of evidence or the omission of crime by the above public officials.

3. Whether a violation of the Public Official Election Act is recognized (whether it is related to an election campaign for at least four million won that is received by non-party 1).

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant transferred KRW 2 million to Nonindicted Party 1’s account two times on July 2, 2012 and August 6, 2012. However, Nonindicted Party 1 was provided as remuneration for the registration of Nonindicted Party 1 as a paid agent of the Defendant’s regional office of the National Assembly member, and the Defendant did not have agreed to pay the remuneration for election campaign with Nonindicted Party 1, as well as for the payment of the remuneration for election campaign.

B. Determination by issue

(1) Whether the promise exists for the payment of the price for the election campaign

위와 같이 증거능력이 인정되지 아니한 증거들을 제외한 나머지 판시 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 1은 피고인의 전남 고흥군 소재 ▽▽초등학교 후배로서, 4, 5년 전 호남향우회 체육대회에서 피고인을 알게 되었고, 피고인의 형 공소외 6과는 15년 전부터 향우회 체육대회 등에서 만나면서 친분을 유지하여 온 관계에 있었던 점, ② 공소외 1은 2011. 5.경 피고인이 수원시에서 국회의원 출마를 준비하고 있음을 알게 되자, 피고인의 ○○○연구소 사무실을 찾아가 피고인에게 “국회의원에 출마하시면 사람도 많이 필요할테니 제가 도울 수 있으면 돕겠습니다”라고 말하여 피고인의 승낙을 얻은 점, ③ 공소외 1은 선거운동원으로 등록하지 아니한 채 2011. 6.경부터 2012. 4. 11. 선거일까지 사이에 피고인에게 수원시 ◁◁구 내에서 개최되는 축구대회의 일정을 보고하는 한편, ◁◁구 축구연합회 임원들과 인맥을 이용하여 피고인으로 하여금 위 축구대회에 참석하여 축사를 하게 하거나 참석자들과 인사할 수 있도록 주선하는 동시에 그 자리에서 피고인을 수행하였을 뿐만 아니라, 수십회에 걸쳐 축구연합회 임원들을 비롯한 지인들에게 피고인의 지지를 호소하면서 당내 경선을 위한 모바일 경선 선거인단 등록을 권유하는 등의 방법으로 피고인의 선거운동을 지원하면서 피고인의 당선을 위해 상당히 적극적인 활동을 한 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 공소외 1은 피고인의 지지를 호소하기 위해 자신이 식대를 부담하면서 주변의 지인들과 수회의 식사를 하는 등 선거운동을 위해 상당한 비용을 지출한 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 공소외 1은 위와 같이 지출한 식비의 영수증에 그 지출 경위를 기재하여 정리하였고, 이를 근거로 공소외 6에게 비용의 정산을 요구하였다가 거절당하였고, 피고인에게 축구연합회 임원들을 위한 ▷▷호텔 사우나 이용권의 교부를 부탁하기도 하였던 점, ⑥ 공소외 1은 2008.부터 2010. 겨울까지 곤지암리조트, 양산리조트의 스키장에서 총괄업무를 수행하였고, 2011. 2.경 스키시즌이 끝난 후부터 2011. 6.경부터 일거리를 찾던 중 스포츠마사지 업소를 시작하였으나, 영업이 부진하여 별다른 수입이 없었고, 이혼한 전처가 주는 생활비나 공소외 17 등의 선배들이 가끔씩 주는 용돈으로 생계를 유지하였으며, 2011. 말경에는 공과금을 납부하지 못하여 집에 단수가 되는 등 극심한 생활고를 겪고 있었고, 2012. 4. 선거 이후 공소외 6 및 피고인에게 여러 차례 자신의 위와 같은 경제적 어려움을 호소하며 도움을 요청한 점, ⑦ 공소외 1은 평소 주변의 축구연합회 임원들에게 피고인이 선거운동을 도와준 자신을 홀대하고 있어 불만이라는 취지의 말을 여러 차례 하였던 점, ⑧ 공소외 1은 피고인이 국회의원으로 당선되면 자신을 수행비서나 운전기사로 채용하여 줄 것을 희망하고 있었으나, 피고인은 공소외 1의 능력, 외모, 품위 등이 부족하여 그러한 직무를 수행할 수 없다고 판단하여 공소외 1의 위 요구를 거절하여 공소외 1이 상당히 실망하고 있었던 점, ⑨ 피고인은 선거일 이전에도 자원봉사자인 공소외 1을 유급 선거사무원으로 등재하여 수당을 지급할 수 있었음에도 그러하지 아니하였음에 비추어, 피고인에게 당초부터 공소외 1에게 선거운동의 대가를 지급할 의사가 없었던 것으로 볼 여지도 있으나, 피고인은 공소외 1과 사이에 선거운동의 대가 지급에 관한 명시적인 약정을 하지 아니하였음은 물론, 그 지급수단, 지급액수, 지급시기에 대하여 구체적인 약정이 없었으므로, 피고인으로서는 자신의 당선을 조건으로 공소외 1에게 사후적인 보상 차원에서 선거운동의 대가를 지급하기로 계획하고 있었을 가능성도 배제할 수 없고, 사실관계가 그와 같은 이상, 피고인이 선거운동기간 내에 공소외 1을 유급 선거운동원으로 등재하지 아니한 사정만으로 피고인이 공소외 1에게 선거운동의 대가를 지급하기로 약정한 사실이 없다고 단정하기 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 비록 공소외 1이 공소외 6과의 친분에 기하여 피고인을 위한 적극적인 선거운동에 나설 수 있는 관계에 있었다고 하더라도, 공소외 1은 축구대회에서 피고인의 선거운동 등을 주선하는 정도를 넘어서서 자신의 경제적인 궁핍에도 불구하고 지인들의 식비를 지출하는 부담까지 감수하면서 피고인을 위한 적극적인 선거운동을 한 다음, 선거 후에 피고인 및 공소외 6을 상대로 제기한 수행비서 또는 운전기사로의 채용 부탁이 거절되자 적지 아니한 실망감 및 배신감을 느끼고 있었는바, 사정이 그와 같다면 공소외 1의 선거운동은 공소외 1의 피고인에 대한 호의에 기한 것이라기보다, 피고인과 공소외 1 사이에 선거 전에 묵시적으나마 피고인이 공소외 1에게 선거운동의 대가를 지급하기로 한 약속에 기한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

(2) Whether the relevance between 4 million won in the name of the benefits and the election campaign is recognized

(A) Determination in the external pretext of the provision of the above 4 million won (whether the defendant employed Nonindicted 1 as a paid clerk for the local office)

According to each evidence of the judgment, the Defendant may recognize the fact that around May 2012, the Defendant, through his employees, performed the work of preparing documents, etc. to employ Nonindicted Party 1 as a paid employee of the local office, and according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant employed Nonindicted Party 1 as a paid employee of the local office, and as a result, the Defendant, who paid Nonindicted Party 1 as a paid employee of the local office, can be deemed to be “benefit” in the external name of the above four million

(B) Whether the economic value of the labor offered by Nonindicted Party 1 as a paid worker is met with the above 4 million won or not, or not, its shortage;

판시 각 증거에 의하면, 피고인이 2012. 5.경 공소외 1을 유급사무원으로 채용하기로 한 다음, 사무국장 공소외 5를 통하여 공소외 1을 상대로 지역사무소의 출근을 종용하였을 뿐 만 아니라, 공소외 1 역시 피고인의 지역구 관리를 위하여 공소외 6에게 ◁◁구 내 축구단체의 개최 일정을 보거나 주말 축구대회 장소에서 피고인을 수행하여 축구경기를 방문하도록 하는 등 유급사무원으로서 일부 노무를 제공한 사실이 인정되나, 판시 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인은 공소외 1을 유급사무원으로 채용함에 있어 공소외 1이 자신의 스포츠마사지 업소를 운영하되, 유급사무원의 지위를 겸직하면서 지역사무실에 상시 출근하지 아니할 수 있는 근로조건을 허가하였고, 공소외 1이 지역사무실에서 담당하여야 할 업무의 내용도 정해지지 아니한 점, ② 공소외 1은 2012. 6.부터 2012. 7.경까지 두 달 동안 1주일에 1, 2회 정도 지역사무소에 출근하였고, 출근해서도 잠시 사무실에서 있다가 그 즉시 퇴근하였던 점, ③ 위 사무소의 사무원인 공소외 4는 “공소외 1이 어떤 일을 하는 사람인지 전혀 모른다”는 취지로 진술한 점, ④ 공소외 1은 지역구 내의 축구 관련 행사 일정 등을 자신의 고용인인 피고인이나 직속상관인 공소외 5에게 보고하지 아니한 채, 지역사무소의 업무와 관련이 없는 공소외 6에게 보고한 점, ⑤ 공소외 1에 대한 출근 독촉의 문자메시지의 발송에 따라 공소외 1이 지역사무소에 출근하지 아니하였음에도 불구하고, 피고인은 공소외 1을 상대로 어떠한 문책이나 징계를 하지 아니하였던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 비록 공소외 1이 축구 관련 단체들의 조직을 관리하는 업무를 담당하기로 하였고, 공소외 1이 위 기간 동안 공소외 6에게 축구대회 일정을 알려준 다음 주말 시간대에 피고인의 축구단체 방문을 수행하였다고 하더라도, 공소외 1이 국회의원 지역사무소의 유급사무원으로서 수행한 위와 같은 업무 내지 위와 같이 제공한 근로는 피고인이 지급한 월 200만 원의 급여 가치에 크게 미치지 못한다고 볼 수 있다.

(C) Whether the portion exceeding the economic value of the labor offered by Nonindicted Party 1 among the above 4 million won is a quid pro quo of election campaign.

According to each evidence, the Defendant rejected Nonindicted 1’s request from Nonindicted 1 for employment as a member of the National Assembly or a driver, and Nonindicted 5’s secretary general of the regional office opposed to the employment of Nonindicted 1 as a paid member of the local office. ② The Defendant did not confirm or discuss Nonindicted 1’s intention in advance when employing Nonindicted 1 as a paid member of the local office, and there is no circumstance in which the Defendant consulted on the duties, working conditions, benefits, etc. of Nonindicted 1, and ③ the Defendant continued to request the submission of a certified copy of resident registration and the preparation of a labor contract on the ground that the Defendant did not request the submission of a certified copy of the election campaign or demand for the preparation of a labor contract against Nonindicted 1 through Nonindicted 5, on the ground that it would have been difficult to find that the Defendant would have been paying the remainder of the election campaign expenses in excess of the ordinary cost of the election campaign for which Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 1 appear to have been paid to the election commission.

(D) The extent of the amount deemed related to the election campaign, in the event that the above 4 million won is a quid pro quo due to the provision of service and is a quid pro quo for the election campaign;

As seen earlier, 4 million won, which the Defendant paid to Nonindicted Party 1 as a paid employee, falls short of the economic value of his work provided by Nonindicted Party 1, and if the remainder except that part, is related to the election campaign of Nonindicted Party 1, it constitutes a case where the nature of the consideration for the work provided by Nonindicted Party 1 for the local office between June 2012 and July 2012 as a paid employee, and the nature of the consideration for the election campaign performed by Nonindicted Party 1 for the Defendant before the election, is indivisible. In such a case, the entire money and valuables provided are indivisible.

C. Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

[Scope of the punishment by law] Fines of not less than 50,000 but not more than 10 million won

[Determination of Type of Crime] Type 2 (General Purchase) of Election Offense, Purchase and Understanding Encouragement

【Special Convicted Persons】

Measures for mitigation: Where the other party complies with the affirmative needs of the other party, or where the other party provides or receives minor money, goods, etc. at a cost of compensation for actual expenses or consolation;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area (A fine of one million to five million won)

[Special Adjustment within the scope of the recommended sentence] Fines of not less than 500,000 but not more than 5 million won

【Determination of Sentence】

The crime of this case is due to the fact that the defendant had the non-indicted 1, who attempted to carry out his election campaign, registered as a paid agent in the local office of the National Assembly member, and paid the money as salary, thereby providing money to non-indicted 1 in connection with the election campaign. The defendant's act is poor in light of the purpose of the Public Official Election Act to prevent excessive voting, the purpose of preventing mixed election, and the method of lending money and valuables related to the election campaign, which are related to the election campaign, to the employment of a paid agent, etc., and however, considering that the defendant's act is not against the law of crime, strict punishment against the defendant is needed.

However, the defendant has no record of punishment more than the suspension of execution, the passive response to the demand of the non-indicted 1, the strong nature of compensation for the expenses claimed by the non-indicted 1, the money provided is not more than 4 million won, and the part of the money provided by non-indicted 1 is included in the above 4 million won, and the motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc. are considered as a whole, and all of the sentencing conditions in this case are determined as per the order.

1. Summary of the facts charged regarding the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the promise to make contributions;

피고인은 2011. 12. 29.경 ‘♤♤♤ - ◈◈◈ ◈◈◈’ 식당에서, 공소외 1로부터 피고인의 당선을 위하여 수원 ◁◁구 축구연합회 임원 등을 상대로 한 선거운동에 필요하니 피고인이 운영하는 같은 동 소재 ▷▷호텔 사우나 할인권 30장을 제공해 달라는 요구를 받고, 그 요구에 응하여 위 할인권 30장을 제공하기로 공소외 1과 약속하고, 2012. 6. 초순경 및 2012. 7. 17.경 공소외 1이 위 사우나 할인권 제공 약속 이행을 독촉하자, 다시 위 사우나 할인권을 제공할 것을 약속하였다.

이로써 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 수원◎ 선거구 국회의원 후보가 되고자 하였고, 위 선거에서 당선되어 위 선거구의 국회의원이 된 피고인은 선거사무원으로 신고하지 아니한 채 피고인의 당선을 위하여 선거운동을 한 공소외 1과 기부행위를 약속하였다.

2. Defendant's assertion;

피고인은 공소외 1로부터 ▷▷호텔 사우나 할인권(▷▷호텔 연간이용권) 30장을 제공해 달라는 요구를 받은 사실은 있으나, 이를 승낙한 사실이 없다.

3. Determination

(a) The point of pledge on contribution on December 29, 201;

이 부분 공소사실에 부합하는 증거로 공소외 1의 “그리고 두 번째는 피고인, 공소외 14, 15, 13 등 축구연합회 임원, 진술인이 ♤♤♤에서 만났다. 계산은 진술인이 현금으로 하였다. 그리고 진술인이 식사 중에 피고인 소개와 선거에 대한 도움과 출판기념회의 참석을 요청하였다. 현장에서 피고인이 ▷▷호텔 사우나 연간이용권 30장을 주기로 약속하였다”라는 취지의 2012. 7. 3.자 진술 및 “2011. 12. 29. 두 번째 모임에서 피고인이 참석한 가운데 이번 선거와 관련하여 피고인을 지지해달라고 하였고, 참석자들도 구체적인 요구를 했다. 공소외 13, 14씨가 축구연합회 임원들이 30여명 가량인데 그들에게 ▷▷호텔 사우나 이용권을 제공해 줄 것을 요구하였다. 당시 피고인도 준다고 하였다”라는 취지의 2012. 8. 9.자 진술이 있으나, 한편 검사 및 변호인 제출의 각 증거에 의하면, ① 공소외 1은 제2회 검찰 조사에서 “진술인은 2011. 12. 29. 수원시 (이하 생략) 소재 식당에서 축구연합회 임원들과 식사하는 자리에서 ‘내가 ◇◇이 형(피고인)에게 말해서 사우나 티켓을 몇 개 얻어서 쓸까’라고 말하였다. 피고인에게 전화하여 위 임원들에게 인사하도록 한 다음 피고인에게 ‘축구협회 임원들에게 사우나 티켓을 구해주면 좋겠다. 그래야 나도 형님에 대해서 선거운동하는 체면이 산다’라고 말하였고, 이에 피고인은 ‘그래 무슨 말인지 알겠어’라고 대답하였으며, 진술인은 피고인이 주는 것으로 생각하였다. 그런데 피고인이 선거법 때문에 걱정이 되었는지 호텔 대표이사가 바뀔 때마다 계속 미루기만 했고, 주변 축구회원들이 농담반 진담반으로 ‘집안 형이 당선되었는데도 인사도 없고 그러냐’라는 식으로 말하여 피고인에게 다시 말을 꺼낸 것이다”라고 진술(증거기록 제524, 525면)한 이래 일관되게 “피고인이 제공을 명시적으로 승낙한 것은 아니었다”라고 진술하면서 위 문답서상의 진술을 번복하였고, 이 법정에서도 “2011. 12. 29. 선배들이 식사가 끝나고 모두 돌아간 뒤 피고인에게 ‘체면도 있고 형님 면도 있고 그런데 좀 도와줬으면 좋겠다. 클럽 회원하고 합쳐서 20 내지 30명 됩니다’라고 말하였는데, 피고인이 ‘해줄 수 없다’고 대답하였다”라고 진술한 사실, ② 공소외 13은 2012. 8. 17. 선거관리위원회 조사에서 “진술인(공소외 13)은 2011. 12. 29. 공소외 14, 15, 1과 함께 운동을 마친 뒤 공소외 1의 제안에 따라 ♤♤♤에서 식사를 하고 헤어졌다. 당시 공소외 1은 선거운동에 관하여 이야기를 한 사실이 없고, 진술인은 공소외 1의 요구에도 불구하고 입당원서의 작성을 거절하였으며 당내경선에도 참여하지 아니하였다”라고 진술하였고, 검찰 조사에서 “식사가 거의 끝나갈 무렵 피고인이 와서 명함을 나누어 주면서 ‘잘 부탁드립니다’라고 인사를 한 다음 밥을 시켜서 먹고 헤어졌다. 사우나 이용권에 관하여는 이야기를 나눈 사실이 없다”라고 진술한 사실, ③ 공소외 15는 검찰 조사에서 “식사를 하던 중 공소외 1이 피고인이 국회의원에 출마할 예정이라며 지지를 부탁하였고, 공소외 1의 연락을 받은 피고인이 식당을 찾아와 인사를 하였고, 5분 내지 10분 정도 머무른 후 돌아갔으며, ▷▷호텔 사우나에 대한 언급은 없었다”라고 진술하였고, 이 법정에서 “피고인이 식당을 찾아와 간단한 인사만 하고 돌아갔고 사우나 티켓에 관한 이야기는 없었다”라고 진술한 사실, ④ 공소외 14는 검찰 조사에서 “2011. 12. 29. ♤♤♤ 식당에서 공소외 1, 13, 15와 함께 식사를 하던 중 공소외 1이 피고인을 불러 피고인이 식사가 끝날 무렵 방문하여 ‘도와달라’는 취지의 말을 하였으나, 호텔 사우나 회원권에 관하여는 아무런 이야기를 하지 않았다”라고 진술한 사실이 인정되고, 위 진술들의 일관성, 상호 일치 여부, 위 진술인들의 피고인과의 관계, 허위 진술 가능성 등을 고려하면, 이 부분 공소사실에 부합하는 공소외 1의 선거관리위원회에서의 위 각 진술은 이를 쉽게 믿기 어렵다.

또한 공소외 1의 업무 수첩 중 2012. 1. 부분에 ‘▷▷호텔 70% 회원권 ◁◁구 임원용(30여명)’이라 기재되어 있는 사실(증거기록 제529면)이 인정되나, 공소외 1은 이 법정에서 “피고인에게 요구하려고 계획을 메모해 둔 것이다”라고 진술하였고, 위 기재가 반드시 피고인의 승낙을 전제로 한 것이라 단정하기 어렵고, 오히려 2011. 12. 29.부터 현재까지 피고인이 실제 사우나 티켓의 지급을 하지 않은 사실에 비추어 보면 피고인의 승낙사실을 인정하기 어렵다.

(b) The act of contribution to a police officer on June 2012 and on July 17, 2012;

The evidence as shown in the facts charged in this part includes a recording file of telephone conversations between Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 6 on June 4, 2012, and a recording file of telephone conversations between Nonindicted 1 and Defendant on July 17, 2012, and the above recording file of telephone conversations between Defendant and Defendant on July 17, 2012. However, each of the above evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this part is admissible as evidence as seen in the above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts. Thus, the evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this part cannot

4. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the verdict of innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

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

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)