[1] Whether a contribution act by a candidate, etc. prohibited by Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act requires an election relation (negative)

[2] The case holding that the act of the head of a local government to pay an administrative fine to the former and incumbent workers on duty who had an influence on the election by awareness of the re-election of a member of the local council to be held in the future and the act of receiving the payment by substitute

[1] Although the entire Public Official Election Act was made for the purpose of preventing illegal elections (Article 1 of the Public Official Election Act), Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act prohibits all contributions in light of the fact that the status of the National Assembly members, local council members, heads of local governments, representatives of political parties, candidates and their spouses, who are themselves political parties or are closely related to politics, are prohibited from being involved in all contributions, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that such acts do not require election relations such as language and text.

[2] The case holding that the act of the head of a local government to pay an administrative fine to the former and incumbent workers on duty who had an influence on the election by awareness of the re-election of a member of the local council to be held in the future and the act of receiving the payment by proxy constitutes

[1] Articles 1 and 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act / [2] Articles 112, 113, 115, and 257(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act

Defendant 1 and seven others

Kim Jong-tae

Attorneys Kim Chang-con et al.

1. Defendant 1’s imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 10 months, 6 months, 300, 4 Defendant 5’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 6 months, and 6 months, 6 months, Defendant 6’s fine for 1,200,000, 7’s fine for 1,200,000, and 8’s fine for 800,000, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for one year shall be suspended for Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 5 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

2. Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8 did not pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

3. The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 43 days each of the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 1 and 2, and the two days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be each of the above imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 3 and 5, and the two days under detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the period under which the above fine against Defendant 4

4. 10,00,000 won from Defendant 3, 8,100,000 won from Defendant 4, 7,200,000 won from Defendant 5, 2,700,000 won from Defendant 6, 1,80,000 won from Defendant 7, and 90,000 won from Defendant 8 shall be collected respectively.

1. Issues;

Defendant 1, who is the head of the Seogu Metropolitan City, has made a contribution act in collusion with Defendant 2 (legal: imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won); Defendant 2, in collusion with Defendant 1, has made a contribution act (legal: imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won) for the candidate in connection with the election, and Defendant 3, 5 has received a contribution from Defendant 1, who is the head of the Seogu Metropolitan City (legal: imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 10 million won), Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8 has received a contribution from Defendant 2 (legal penalty: imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 5 million won), in collusion with Defendant 1 (legal penalty: imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 5 million won).

On the other hand, Defendant 1 cannot be punished because there is no relation with the election by proxy and there is no violation of the duty of election by public officials. Defendant 2 did not recommend Defendant 1 to pay the fine for negligence in lieu of the election by proxy. Defendant 3 was irrelevant to the election by proxy. Defendant 5 did not have to demand the payment by proxy of the fine for negligence. Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8 did not have to demand the payment by proxy of the fine for negligence, and Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8 argued that Defendant 1 did not have any relation to the election by proxy (excluding Defendant 4) and there is no relation to the election by proxy (excluding Defendant 4).

Therefore, the issues of the instant case are as follows: (a) whether Defendant 1’s contribution act violates the Public Official Election Act; (b) whether Defendant 2 recommended Defendant 1 to make contribution; (c) whether such contribution act is related to election; (d) whether Defendant 3 was aware of the fact that Defendant 1 paid an administrative fine by proxy; (e) whether Defendant 5 demanded payment of an administrative fine by proxy to Defendant 1; and (e) whether Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8’s contribution act is related to election; and (e) if the facts charged are proved to be guilty, a sentence shall be determined appropriately within the statutory scope.

2. Criminal facts, etc. proved strictly;

A. Qualification of the Defendants

(1) Defendant 1 started political activities as an operating member of the Daegu Metropolitan City, Seo-gu District Party of Democratic Republic of Korea around February 1981, and was in charge of five head of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, a Democratic Free Economic Zone from around February 1990. Defendant 1 was elected in the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council in 1991 and 1995, respectively. Defendant 1 was in charge of the members of the Seo-gu Special Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Daegu Special Metropolitan City, Daegu Special Metropolitan City. Defendant 1 was in charge of the third time of the election implemented on June 13, 2002 and the fourth time of the election implemented on May 31, 2006. From around March 1995 to March 204, 195, he was in charge of the members of the Seo-gu Special Metropolitan City Council.

(2) Defendant 2, as the secretary general of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council for Party Members, manages party members by means of maintaining contact with party members, such as the chairperson, general secretary, female president, and director general, who are appointed by each Dong in the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and is in charge of promoting active election campaigns, such as ordering the party members on duty to mobilization a large number of union members to the candidates for Korea-do candidates, and educating the neighboring electors to publicize the candidates for Korea-do candidates.

(3) From the beginning of the 1990s to the beginning of June 13, 2002, Defendant 3 had been engaged in the general affairs of the member cooperatives of the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council in the process of changing the names of the political parties to the Democratic Freedom Party, the New Korea Party, and the Hanra Party for ten years from the beginning of the 1990s to the beginning of June 13, 2002. At present, Defendant 3 is the chairperson of the Seo-gu branch of

(4) Defendant 4 worked for approximately 11 years from around 1995 to March 2006 as a general secretary for the members of the 7-dong Council of New Korea and the Seogu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City of Hanna City.

(5) Defendant 5, who carried out the 14th National Assembly member election on March 24, 1992, was admitted to the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City of the 14th National Assembly member political party, and was in charge of the 1st Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City, and was in charge of the 3th National Assembly member election from June 13, 2002 to July 2006.

(6) Defendant 6 was admitted to the Hanna Party around 1997, and from around 2003 to around 2003, Defendant 6 was engaged in the general affairs of the Seo-gu 1 Dong Scattering City Council for Members of the Party.

(7) Defendant 7, from around 1998 to around 2002, worked as the general secretary of the Council for Party Members of Korea-U.S. Dong-ri 3 Dong-ri party from around 1998 to around 2002. On May 31, 2006, Defendant 7 went to a candidate for Korea-U.S. local simultaneous election and was elected to the Seogu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council, and was responsible for the election campaign manager of Nonindicted Party 1.

(8) Defendant 8 was admitted to the Democratic Family Council around 1988 and was in charge of the general affairs of the 6-dong party members council for 14 years. From 2002 to 2002, Defendant 8 was working as the president of the same Council members council.

(b) Criminal facts;

(1) Defendant 1, 2, the election of the 5th executive officer of the 1st election of the 5th executive officer of the 1st election of the 5th executive officer of the 1st election of the 4th executive officer of the 1st election of the 5th executive officer of the 1st election of the 0th executive officer of the 1st election of the 0th executive officer of the 2nd election of the 1st election of the 1st executive officer of the 0th election of the 1st election of the 0th executive officer of the 4th election of the 1st election of the 0th executive officer of the 0th election of the 1st election of the 1st executive officer of the 7th executive officer of the 0th executive officer of the 2nd election of the 0th executive officer of the 2nd election of the 1st executive officer of the 0th executive officer of the 2nd election of the 0th executive officer of the 2nd executive officer of the 20th executive officer office.

(A) On March 207, Defendant 2 asked the head of a local government to make a contribution (the act of providing money, goods, and other property benefits, expressing intent to provide benefits, or promising to provide them) by having Defendant 1 make a statement to the head of a local government to the effect that Defendant 2 would demand the head of a local government to pay the fine for negligence through Nonindicted 7, a non-party 7, who is the head of the Seo-gu Metropolitan City, the head of the Seo-gu Office, the head of the non-party 2, who is a member of the National Assembly in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, would bring about each payment order at the office of non-party 6, who is a member of the National Assembly in receipt of the order to pay the fine for negligence.

(B) Defendant 1, who is the head of the Seogu Metropolitan City, conspired with Defendant 2 to make a contribution act in sequence, and the head of a local government is not entitled to make a contribution act as above. However, around March 26, 2007, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to deliver the cash of KRW 35 million prepared by requesting Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 3, who is the head of the Seo-gu Metropolitan City office, to pay an administrative fine, at the office of the head of the Seo-gu Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Daegu, Daegu, and the head of the office, at around March 26, 2007, Nonindicted 7, who is the head of the office of the secretary, to deliver the said money to Defendant 2. Defendant 2 received the said money and delivered KRW 10 million to Defendant 3 for the same day as the payment of the administrative fine in lieu of the attached list of crimes, and deliver KRW 35,400,000,000,000 to the incumbent head of the local government or the head of the Dong.

(C) Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant 2 was unable to make a contribution on behalf of a candidate or his political party with respect to an election, Defendant 2 made a contribution act, such as providing money, goods, and other property benefits, or expressing an intention to offer, or promising to offer such benefits, at the time and place indicated in the above “(1)(b), and on April 25, 2007 regarding the reelection of a member of the Daegu Metropolitan City Council, Daegu Metropolitan City Council, as described in the above “(1)(b).”

(2) Although Defendant 3 was unable to receive a donation from the head of a local government, on September 15, 2005, he received an administrative fine of KRW 180,00 from Nonindicted Party 2 at his own residential area located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 1, 806-55, and received an administrative fine of KRW 180,00 from Nonindicted Party 2, and Defendant 3, who received an administrative fine of KRW 1,00 from Defendant 1, who received an administrative fine of KRW 1,00,00 from Defendant 1, who received an administrative fine of KRW 30,00 from Defendant 1, who received an administrative fine of KRW 1,00,00 from Defendant 2, who received an administrative fine of KRW 0,00 from Defendant 1, who received an administrative fine of KRW 1,00 from Defendant 3, who received an administrative fine of KRW 1,00,00 from the head of the local government.

(3) Notwithstanding the fact that no one is entitled to receive a donation from the head of a local government on September 15, 2005, Defendant 5 received an amount of KRW 14,000 from Nonindicted 2 at his own residence located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 1048-2, and received an administrative fine from Nonindicted 2 on or around May 2006, Defendant 5 received a notice of KRW 7,200,00 from the Daegu Line’s order for the violation of the Public Official Election Act. Defendant 5 received an administrative fine from Nonindicted 3 on or around June 2006, to the effect that “The administrative fine should not be resolved by the head of the Gu, but it should not be resolved by the head of the local government.” Defendant 1, the head of the local government, the head of the local government, through Nonindicted 3, the head of the local government, who received the order of the administrative fine from Defendant 20, 200, and Defendant 1 received the same order from the same local government office.

(4) On September 15, 2005, Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8 received respectively from Nonindicted 2 9, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8: (a) on their own residence; (b) on September 15, 2005, 3, Defendant 7, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 received from Nonindicted 2 5, respectively; (c) on September 1, 2006, Defendant 4 did not know of the above fact that the election was carried out by Nonindicted 4, Defendant 6, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 90,00 won, and Defendant 8, Defendant 4, despite of the fact that the election was carried out by Nonindicted 4, 700,00 won, and Defendant 8, Defendant 4, who was aware of the above fact that the election was carried out by a member of the National Assembly on duty due to a sudden reason in the election of Seogu Seoul Metropolitan City or a member of the National Assembly on duty.

(A) On March 207, Defendant 4 received an order to pay a fine for negligence from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office to the effect that Defendant 4 received an order to pay the fine for negligence from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, and paid the fine for negligence to Defendant 2 at the office of the National Assembly member, and around 26th of the same month, Defendant 4 asked Defendant 2 to assist in an election campaign for Nonindicted 4’s election at the re-election, which read, “There is no person who will work at a 7 emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emulsive emuls emuls

(B) On March 207, Defendant 6 received the money equivalent to the same amount as to the election by having Defendant 2, who requested Defendant 6 to assist in an election campaign for Nonindicted 4 at a re-election on several occasions, at his own residence located in Daegu, Seo-gu, 1, 588-24, which is a 588-24, from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, to receive an order to pay an administrative fine from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, to the effect that the person who received the order to pay the administrative fine from the 6th office of the National Assembly member, and to pay the administrative fine to the 6th office of the National Assembly member.

(C) On March 2007, Defendant 7 delivered to Defendant 2 a written order for the payment of an administrative fine from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office to the effect that Defendant 7 would request the payment of the administrative fine against Defendant 2 at his own residence located in Pyeongtaek-gu, Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, 1041-19; Defendant 2 asked Defendant 7 to assist in an election campaign for Nonindicted 4’s election at the Daegu District Court’s presidential branch in the same Dong around 26th of the same month; and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 7 to pay the administrative fine of KRW 1,80,000, which was imposed on Defendant 4 to him; and

(D) On March 207, Defendant 8 received money equivalent to the same amount as to the election by having Defendant 2, who requested Defendant 8 to assist in an election campaign for Nonindicted 4 in a re-election on several occasions at his own workplace located in Daegu, Seo-gu, 448-4, and received an order to pay the fine for negligence from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, who received an order to pay the fine for negligence from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, and paid the fine for negligence to Defendant 6 office of the National Assembly member, and around March 26, 2007, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 8 to pay the fine for negligence to Defendant 90,000 on several occasions for the election of Nonindicted 4.

C. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

(1) Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act was made for the purpose of preventing improper elections and the purpose of its enactment is to limit the object of donations to the persons located in the relevant constituency. Thus, Defendant 1’s act of paying fines for negligence on behalf of Defendant 1 cannot be punished because it is irrelevant to the election.

However, the purpose of Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act is to prevent unfair elections (Article 1 of the Public Official Election Act), but the purpose of Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act is to prohibit all contributions by considering that the status of the National Assembly members, local council members, heads of local governments, representatives of political parties, candidates and their spouses is in itself or are closely related to politics. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that all contributions are prohibited by considering that there is an election relation, and accordingly, they do not require election relation such as the language and text.

Therefore, the issue of whether Defendant 1’s act of paying the administrative fine of this case is related to the election or whether Defendant 1 violated the duty of election neutrality is not affected by the establishment of the crime of this case, and thus, the above assertion is rejected without further review.

(2) Defendants 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and their defense counsel asserted that the act of receiving contributions or donations by the said Defendants is not related to election.

The following indirect facts can be acknowledged in light of such indirect facts. In light of such indirect facts, the term "election" as provided in Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act, "the purpose of election campaign", "the purpose of election campaign", and "the election" can be acknowledged as being related to the election in the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Daegu Metropolitan City (Seoul Metropolitan City 1 through 7, 1996, 198, 2004Do5298, March 25, 2005, 2005, 2004Do5298, etc.) where the above defendants were related to the election in question, such as inducing or borrowing the pertinent election even if the election campaign was not carried out for the purpose of election campaign," and "the purpose of election campaign" to influence the election (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do405, Jun. 14, 1996; 204Do5298, Mar. 25, 2005).

(A) March 26, 2007, March 26, 2007, the date of the instant administrative fine, is close to April 25, 2007, a re-election day.

(B) Defendant 2’s primary duty is to encourage other workers on duty for election campaign as the head of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council for Party Members. Defendant 2 has requested other former and present workers on duty including the Defendants who received a donation through the payment of administrative fines in lieu of administrative fines to the other party members.

(C) Defendants 6 and 8 who received the instant donation shall attend the meeting of the General Council of Party Members or the Chairperson of the Seo-gu Council of Party Members held each month to deliver the direction of the Party to the party members residing in each Dong, and maintain a friendly relationship with the party members, and shall conduct various public elections, if they look at various public elections, they shall publicize the same candidate to the neighboring electorates, encourage the women's president, youth president, and the party members appointed in each Dong to participate in the same election, and inform the candidates of the trend of information and public opinion about the various meetings held in each Dong, and they shall also play the role of informing them of the trend of information and public opinion. Defendants 3, 5, 4, and 7 also play the above role for the period of time during which they are engaged in the general affairs of the Council of Party Members. At present, Defendant 3 had contact with the residents of the above Dong-ri, 7 Dong-dong, 7 Dong-dong, 7 Dong-dong, and 7 Dong-dong with the residents of the above region.

(D) At the time of the instant crime, Nonindicted 4’s support, a candidate for Hanra, was a more serious situation in which the support by Nonindicted 4 was behind Nonindicted 5, a candidate for the instant crime, to which he was affiliated, the former and incumbent workers on duty.

(E) Defendant 1’s accusation against Nonindicted 3, the chief secretary, was subject to a fine for negligence, and at the time, the complaint of the former and current workers on duty including the Defendants who received the instant donation was raised.

3. Summary of evidence which has admissibility and probative value;

4. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on criminal facts;

- Relevant legal provisions and choice of penalties for facts of crime

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 257(1)1, 113(1), 112, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of contribution by candidates, etc. and the choice of imprisonment) of the Public Official Election Act;

(b) Defendant 2: Article 257(1)1, Article 113(2) and (1), Article 112(s) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 257(1)1, Article 115, Article 112 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of a third party’s contribution act and the choice of imprisonment);

(c) Defendant 3 and 5: Articles 257(2), 113(1), and 112 of the Public Official Election Act (generally, the fact that a donation is made by a candidate, etc. and the choice of imprisonment);

(d) Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8: Articles 257(2), 115, and 112 of the Public Official Election Act (the fact that contributions are received from a third party and the selection of fines);

- Aggravation of concurrent crimes

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes to the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the act of contribution to Defendant 3 with the largest penalty);

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes for the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the act of contribution to Defendant 3 with the largest offense and offense)

- the confinement of a workhouse;

Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

· pre-trial detention

(a) Defendant 1 and 2: Article 57 of each Criminal Act (43 days = 3 days + 30 days + 10 days);

B. Defendant 3, 4, and 5: Article 57 (2) of the Criminal Act

-Suspension

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5: Each of the circumstances in favor of Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5 under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

- Ratification

Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: The proviso to Article 257(4) of the Public Official Election Act

5. Both punishments;

In addition to the common sentencing grounds, such as the defendants' age, occupation, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined by comprehensively taking the following special circumstances into account (e.g., reasonable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances, and other circumstances):

(a) Objectives, etc. of the Public Official Election Act;

(A) People, including political parties, shall voluntarily participate in the election and voluntarily support the election. The protected legal interest of election crimes is the freedom of election and the fairness of election, and the Public Official Election Act aims to promote the self-equition and voluntary support of election campaigns, and acts contrary thereto are subject to intervention in the Public Official Election Act even if they are internal issues of the political party.

(B) The reason why the Public Official Election Act prohibiting an act of donation or donation and punishing a person in violation of this Act lies in securing the self-refensive and voluntary support of an election campaign that is not related to the act of donation (such as provision of money, goods, and other property benefits, expression of intent to offer benefits, or promise to provide them) and restricting an election or election campaign based on property benefits. Therefore, if a person receives a contribution or donation contrary to the self-refensive and voluntary support of an election campaign, it constitutes

(c) actively or actively receiving contributions shall bear the same responsibility as contributions.

(D) The Public Official Election Act provides various provisions in order to guarantee the initiative and voluntary support of election campaigns, and allows a certain offender to isolate the offender from society for a certain period of time, taking into account the principle that restricts the right to vote and the right to be elected for a considerable period of time. However, even if the degree of infringement on the freedom of election, the fairness of election, and the autonomy of election campaigns is significant and reasonable, a punishment against the offender may be selected depending on his/her responsibility.

(E) Although Nonindicted 4, who is a candidate for Hannaa, was not elected as a Si Council member, the Defendants’ act was not significant, and as a result, it cannot be deemed that the degree of infringement of self-determination of election campaigns is less severe, the remaining Defendants except Defendant 8 choose a punishment in which the right to vote and to be elected are restricted. Furthermore, the prosecutor has expressed the opinion that there is a need to sentence some Defendants at the sentencing level, but even if the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant 8, who were convicted, are sentenced to the restriction on the right to vote and to be elected, are determined to have the effect of general prevention as above, so the Defendants are not subject to choice of punishment isolated from society for a certain period of time.

(b) Common matters:

(A) The sum of the money contributed by Defendant 1 and 2 is relatively large to KRW 35.4 million. Defendant 1 included KRW 35.5 million, which Defendant 2 received as a reward for reporting an election crime, in which Nonindicted 3 received as a reward for reporting an election crime.

(B) Although reporting Nonindicted 2’s violation of the Election Act should be encouraged as a legitimate act, and the person who committed such act should be protected, it would rather cause that the public opinion on Defendant 1, etc. was created and that the person liable to pay the fine for negligence actively demanded the payment of the fine for negligence was an important cause for the instant crime.

(C) Defendant 2 paid an administrative fine on April 25, 2007 to re-election, but in the re-election, the above re-election was not a candidate for Nonindicted 4, who was not a candidate for Hanra, but a candidate for Nonindicted 5, who was not a candidate for Hanra, was elected.

(D) Defendant 3 and 5 directly demanded Defendant 1 to pay an administrative fine, while Defendant 4, 6, 7, and 8 did not directly demand Defendant 2 to pay an administrative fine in lieu of the administrative fine.

(E) Although the Defendants were unable to fully recognize the seriousness of their acts or the self-effortness of election campaigns, they are against all the results therefrom, and they are acting or living in good faith in each of their respective positions and homes.

(f) Defendants who are sentenced to a fine should pay additional charges corresponding to the money they received in addition to the fine.

(G) The act of contribution by Defendant 1 and 2 does not actively increase the assets of Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, and the effect of reducing their assets was generated.

(c) Individual matters;

(1) Defendant 1

(A) Even if a person did not actively lead the payment of fines for negligence, he/she is the head of the Gu classified as an important politician under the Public Official Election Act and actively prepared a relatively large amount of KRW 35.5 million.

(B) In the Daegu District Court in 2002, there was a record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 800,000,000, including the record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 800,000 due to a violation of the Election Act and the Prevention of Election

(2) Defendant 2

(A) Even if a person did not actively lead the payment of a fine for negligence, he was requested to pay the fine for negligence on behalf of the head of the secretariat of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Council for Party Members and actively used 35.4 million won, which was received from Defendant 1, for the payment of the fine for negligence.

(B) Only the power of having been sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 in violation of the Road Traffic Act in 198.

(3) Defendant 3

(A) Defendant 1, the head of Seocho-gu, actively demanded the payment of an administrative fine on behalf of the head of the Gu, and the amount of KRW 10 million paid on behalf of the head of the Gu is relatively large.

(B) The past record, including the past record of having been sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,00,000 in violation of the Road Traffic Act in 199, has been sentenced to a fine and a suspended sentence.

(4) Defendant 4

(A) Although the person did not actively demand the payment of an administrative fine by proxy, the person was obligated to pay the administrative fine by proxy, and the amount of 8.1 million won paid by proxy is relatively large.

(B) Only the power of having been sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 for the crime of injury in 201.

(C) In this Court, his mistake has been taken and depthed.

(5) Defendant 5

(A) On July 14, 2006, a fine of KRW 1,500,00 was imposed for the act of contribution, which is the cause of the vicarious payment of a fine for negligence, due to the act of contribution.

(B) Defendant 1, the head of Seocho-gu, actively demanded the payment of an administrative fine on behalf of the head of the Gu, and the amount of KRW 7.2 million paid on behalf of the head of the Gu is relatively large.

(C) There was a record of having been sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million through eight times due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2006, including the record of having been sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million.

(6) Defendant 6

(A) Although the person did not actively demand the payment of an administrative fine by proxy, the person was obligated to pay the administrative fine by proxy and the amount of 2.7 million won paid by proxy is a relatively small amount.

(B) there is no record of punishment.

(7) Defendant 7

(A) Although the person did not actively demand the payment of an administrative fine by proxy, the person was obligated to pay the administrative fine by proxy, and the amount of 1.8 million won paid by proxy is a relatively small amount.

(B) On October 11, 2006, a fine of KRW 700,00 has been imposed for violation of the Public Official Election Act.

(8) Defendant 8

(A) Although the person did not actively demand the payment of an administrative fine by proxy, the person was obligated to pay the administrative fine by proxy, and the amount of 90,000 won paid by proxy is relatively small.

(B) Only 700,000 won of a fine for violation of the Juvenile Protection Act of 2000 has been imposed.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in order to sentence the Defendants guilty.

[Separate] Crime List: Omitted

Judges Yoon Jong-gu (Presiding Judge)