2016 Highest 994 A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

B. Violation of the Political Funds Act

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.(a) C.

The next parallel (prosecution), the number of days under prosecution, and the book-based (public trial)

Attorney D (for the defendant A)

Law Firm E (Defendant A)

Attorney F in charge, G

Law Firm H (for Defendant A)

Attorney in charge 1

Attorney J (Defendant B and C)

January 20, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30,00,000, and Defendant B and C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000. In the event that the Defendants fail to pay the said fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting each of the 100,000 won into one day.

3,750,00 won from Defendant B, and 2,050,000 won from Defendant C shall be collected respectively. The above fine and additional collection charge shall be ordered to be paid provisionally.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A, in the 20th election district of the National Assembly member held on April 13, 2016, was elected as a candidate for a L party in the election district of the 20th election of the National Assembly member, and Defendant B (report on appointment as an election campaign worker as of April 1, 2016) and Defendant C (report on appointment as an election campaign worker as of April 5, 2016 to the N-gu election commission) act as an election campaign worker of a candidate A.

1. Defendant A

(a) Any person who violates a prohibition of installing facilities, restrictions on use of automobiles, and an election campaign period, except for those provided for in the Public Official Election Act, in order to influence the election from 180 days before the election day to the election day (the expression of candidate's photograph shall be deemed to have an influence on the election, and any person shall not post any propaganda materials, such as advertisements, advertising facilities, except in cases where he/she conducts an election campaign after boarding a motor vehicle at a campaign and interview meeting and attaching campaign posters, etc. to a motor vehicle, and shall not conduct an election campaign using a motor vehicle

On April 6, 2016, the Defendant, a vehicle remodeling business entity, entrusted the manufacture of a vehicle equipped with an election photograph and loudspeaker system, image system, etc. submitted by the Defendant to the National Election Commission, which is the representative director of the board of directors, in the form of a vehicle in which the Defendant is equipped with an election campaign, and transferred the vehicle. From April 7, 2016 to April 13, 2016, Q, a driver, in Q, in order to conduct an election campaign, had Q, who is a driver, operate the vehicle (R number) on which the Defendant’s photograph, a candidate, was posted, in the K constituency.

Accordingly, the defendant set up propaganda materials in violation of the Public Official Election Act in order to influence the election, carried out an election campaign using a motor vehicle, and carried out an election campaign on the election day.

B. A candidate shall not be slandered by openly pointing out facts through a speech, broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or any other means, with the intention of preventing a candidate from being elected in an election for candidate's campaign.

On April 9, 2016, from around 16:30 to 22:00, and from around 08:00 to around 10:00 on April 10, 2016, the Defendant’s election campaign office of the Defendant in Seoul, and from around 08:0 to around 10:00, Tparty U is not elected.

For the purpose of doing so, the defendant's election tax vehicle (vehicle number V) parked in the electronic display board "8.4 billion won in the corporate card, i.e., e., Doar U., i., e., Doar Doar who immediately resigned from his office, i.e., Doar Doar Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok, i.e., e., Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok Dok," and i.e., "no member's qualification for purchase of cosmetics using

(c) Dissemination of printed matters in a fraudulent way;

No one shall distribute or spread documents, drawings, pictures, printed materials, or other things similar thereto indicating the name of a candidate, except for acts of directly giving the name of a candidate, photograph, telephone number, academic background, career, and other names carrying matters necessary for publicity to a candidate or candidate during the election campaign period from 180 days before the election day to the election day, or election campaign workers, etc. accompanying a candidate or candidate, who are accompanying the candidate during the election campaign period.

On April 9, 2016, the Defendant instructed B and C to spread the name of the Defendant printed with the phrase “non-verification”, “NcheonU’s morality controversy,” “X’s purchase of valuable goods with a corporate card, and “X’s terrorist speech Y (21-22, March 22, 2016)” in Seoul, which is a constituency within the jurisdiction of Seoul, “20 National Assembly members of the 20th National Assembly, L. Party signM, and a corporate card.” The Defendant spreaded approximately KRW 200 by putting the above name on the entrance, stairs, front of the entrance, parking lots, parking lots, street, and flower. Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with B, C and C, thereby including the name of the Defendant, who is a candidate, in order to have an influence on the election.

(d) Provision of money or goods, profits and illegal disbursement of political funds related to election campaigns;

Except where allowances, actual expenses (within 70,000 won a day) and other benefits are provided to persons related to election affairs under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person shall offer, express an intention to offer, or promise to offer money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign regardless of the pretext thereof, such as allowances, actual expenses, other compensation

In addition, political funds, which are expenses required for political activities of candidates under the Public Official Election Act, shall be disbursed only for expenses required for political activities, and shall not be disbursed for illegal purposes.

1) During the election period from March 31, 2016 to April 12, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 1230,000,000,000 to AA who carried out an election campaign, such as the distribution of name cards and promotion of diskettes, as an election campaign worker, in relation to an election campaign, in excess of KRW 210,00 on April 4, 2016, KRW 210,000 on April 6, 2016, KRW 280,00 on April 11, 2016, KRW 4,330,00 won on April 22, 2016, including KRW 1230,00,000,000 for allowances and actual expenses for 13 days under the Public Official Election Act (i.e., KRW 71,320,000 on April 13, 201).

In addition, the Defendant paid 1730,000 won in total to 5 election campaign workers, such as election campaign workers, under the Public Official Election Act, in relation to election campaign.

Details of payment of allowances, actual expenses, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

As a result, the defendant provided money and valuables to AA, AB, AC, B, and C, an election campaign worker, in relation to the election campaign.

2) On April 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed an election campaign in which B and C spreads the name cards, such as paragraph (c) of Section 1; and (b) was investigated by the Npolice Station on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act; (c) on April 13, 2016, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would make it difficult for B and C to call to the police station on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act; and (d) made it possible for B to call to the police station on April 13, 2016, which was the preceding day; and (c) made it difficult for B and C to issue a fine top and C, so that compensation would also be paid.

Accordingly, on April 14, 2016, the defendant appointed AD attorney for B and C, and on the same day, 3.5 million won of attorney's expense was transferred from the head of the national bank (AE) who reported the defendant's deposit account to the defendant's deposit account for expenditure of political funds to the head of the AD attorney's account. On April 25, 2016, the defendant transferred KRW 1.5 million from the deposit account for expenditure of political funds to B under the expected fine.

Accordingly, in relation to the election campaign, the defendant did not follow the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, but provided the lawyer's fee of 3.5 million won, and used the political funds for illegal purposes, and provided the money of 1.5 million won to B and disbursed the political funds for illegal purposes without following the provisions of the Public Official Election Act.

2. Defendant B

(a) Dissemination of printed matters in a fraudulent way;

In collusion with A and C, the Defendant returned to Seoul 2 April 9, 2016 in order to have an effect on the election, and included in the contents of opposing U candidates, and spread approximately 200 magats, a printed matter indicating A’s name, which is a candidate, in collusion with A and C as referred to in paragraph (3).

(b) Receipt of money, valuables and profits related to election campaigns;

Any person shall not receive money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses (within 70,000 won a day) or other compensation for volunteer services, except where any person engaged in election affairs receives allowances, actual expenses (within 70,000 won a day)

1) The Defendant, as an election campaign worker A from April 3, 2016 to April 12, 2016, performed an election campaign for ten days, such as spraying a candidate’s name cards, etc., and received additional KRW 50,000,000,000,000, including the total of KRW 700,000,000,000,000 for allowances and actual expenses for one day, in addition to the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 700,00,00 from April 15, 2016 as the Defendant’s passbook, as an election campaign worker A, under the Public Official Election Act (hereinafter “Public Official Election Act”).

As a result, the Defendant received money exceeding the allowances and actual expenses under the Public Official Election Act in relation to the election campaign.

2) On April 9, 2016, according to A’s instructions, the Defendant carried out an election campaign with C to spread name cards as referred to in Article 2(a). Accordingly, the Defendant was subject to a request to appear on April 14, 2016 from the N Police Station to investigate a suspected violation of the Public Official Election Act.

On April 13, 2016, the preceding day, the Defendant told from A to the police station that he was going to go to the door, and that the attorney-at-law was appointed, and that the attorney-at-law was able to be given a fine ofponer and C, so compensation would also be paid. Accordingly, on April 14, 2016, the Defendant paid the cost of KRW 3.5 million and received the assistance of AD attorney appointed for the Defendant and C, and received the first suspect investigation from the police station on April 14, 2016, and ordered A to spread name cards, and the facts were that A received instructions from A, even if it was 1.20,00 won, and that the 1-day allowance and actual expenses were divided into residents who were the secretary-at-law, and that the Defendant was provided with the benefit of KRW 1.75 million and the Defendant was provided with the benefit of KRW 57,000,000.

3) The Defendant, like Article 2-2(b)(2), received KRW 1.5 million in the name of the Defendant’s passbook as the Defendant’s passbook from April 19, 2016 and received the first suspect investigation at the Npolice Station, and then delivered several times from April 19, 2016 to AD attorneys with the intention to receive fines and compensations, as agreed in advance.” The Defendant received KRW 1.5 million in the name of the Defendant’s passbook as the Defendant’s passbook from April 25, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant received money and valuables not under the Public Official Election Act in relation to election campaign.

3. Defendant C.

(a) Dissemination of printed matters in a fraudulent way;

In collusion with A and B, the Defendant returned to Seoul 2 April 9, 2016 to the effect of having an effect on the election as set forth in paragraph (1)(c) and included a content of opposing U candidates, and spread approximately 200 marbs, a printed matter indicating A’s name, which is a candidate.

(b) Receiving money or valuables related to election campaigns;

Any person shall not receive money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses (within 70,000 won a day) or other compensation for volunteer services, except where any person engaged in election affairs receives allowances, actual expenses (within 70,000 won a day)

1) The Defendant, as an election campaign worker A, for six days from April 6, 2016 and from August 8 to December, 12, 2016, was paid KRW 300,000,000 in total, including KRW 1,20,000,000,000 for daily allowances and actual expenses, in addition to being paid by the Defendant as the head of the Tong, in addition to being paid KRW 420,000,00,000 for allowances and actual expenses under the Public Official Election Act, under the pretext of allowances and actual expenses (one hundred and twenty thousand,000 won a day) pursuant to the Public Official Election Act.

As a result, the Defendant received money exceeding the allowances and actual expenses under the Public Official Election Act in relation to the election campaign.

2) On April 9, 2016, the Defendant carried out an election campaign with B to spread the name cards as referred to in paragraph 3(a), along with B, according to A’s instructions, and thereby, the Defendant was subject to a request from the N Police Station for attendance on April 14, 2016 to investigate a suspected violation of the Public Official Election Act.

On April 13, 2016, the preceding day, the Defendant made a false statement that “A did not receive A’s instructions from the police station “B,” and that “I would like to make the attorney-at-law to appoint a lawyer, and even if I would have been unable to pay the fine of two people.” Accordingly, A paid the cost of KRW 3.5 million and received the assistance of AD attorney appointed for the Defendant and B on April 14, 2016 and received the first suspect investigation from the police station (“AD”) and received the assistance of the Defendant and B, and did not receive A’s instructions, and the Defendant made a false statement that “I’s allowances and actual expenses are KRW 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won.”

Summary of Evidence

【No. 1-A, B】

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each police statement made to AG, Q, AH and AI;

1. AJ's statement of particulars of supply of promotional vehicles;

1. Data on each press news report, five on-site photographs, three photographs, three photographs of vehicles to be kept, three copies of vehicle records, three maps, public relations vehicle rental contracts, estimates, and deposit accounts with free deposit, materials for public relations activities of the accused's election, reports on campaign speeches, interviewers and public relations vehicles, election campaign vehicle reports, Seodaemun-gu photographs, video shield photographs, small-scale vehicle working photographs, promotion vehicles (1.5 tons); and data on the details of Q currency;

[No. 1-C. 4, 2, 3]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B and C

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's statement about A, AB, and AF;

1. Statement made to AK by the police;

1. Each investigation report (a false statement of the suspect related to the handling of election expenses, verification of omission of the fact that the election campaign worker has paid in excess of statutory allowances, specification of the election campaign worker AC, list of persons engaged in the election campaign, and hearing of AD attorney's statements); 1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the Act and subordinate statutes governing the election campaign worker's name photograph, attorney-at-law selection report, details of passbook transaction, passbook transaction, passbook transaction, election campaign worker's book, deposit certificate, receipt and disbursement report, receipt and disbursement of political funds, receipt and disbursement report, copy of passbook, evidential document (transfer receipt), photo-book of each account, only KRW 00,000, KRW 2016, KRW 3, received copies, collected CCTV, flag-fing photo, recording book (A-C);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Articles 256(3)1 (h), 90(1)1 (a) of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 255(2)4, and 91(3) of the Public Official Election Act; Articles 254(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 251 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 255(2)5 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 230(1)4 and Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act [Article 25(1) of the same Act [Article 255(2)4 and 91(3) [Article 255(2) of the same Act [Article 254(1) of the same Act [Article 254(1) of the same Act [Article 47(1)1 of the same Act]; Article 47(2)3) of the same Act [Article 3(1) of the same Act]

(b) Defendant B: Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the purpose of spraying printed materials by a means of evasion), Article 230(1)7 and 4 of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 135(3) [including the receipt of money and valuables or benefits related to election campaigns, and receipt of money and valuables related to election campaigns as stated in Article 25(2)5 and Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act];

(c) Defendant C: Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the purpose of spraying printed materials by unlawful means); Article 230(1)7 and 4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act [including the receipt of money and valuables or benefits related to election campaigns; Article 3(b)1 of the Decision];

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act [the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of restrictions on the use of automobiles on April 13, 2016, the crimes of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the election campaign period, the crimes of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the election campaign period with heavy punishment, the punishment of violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the election period with heavy punishment, the crime of violation of each Public Official Election Act and each of the crimes of violating the Political Funds

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The penalty provided for in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50 and Article 1-4 (1) of the Criminal Act due to the provision of benefits related to the election campaign and the provision of benefits related to the election campaign, and the penalty provided for in the Public Official Election Act;

(b) Defendant B: The weight of concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Public Official Election Act, stipulated in the first sentence of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 2-B (2) of the Decision with the largest sentence), due to the receipt of the benefits related to the election campaign

(c) Defendant C: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the receipt of gains related to election campaigns as stated in the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 3-B(2) of the Decision with the largest sentence

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

Defendant B and C: each proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

* Defendant B: 3,750,000 won on the basis of the computation of the additional collection charge (i.e., excess allowances or daily allowances or daily allowances of KRW 500,000 + attorney’s fees of KRW 1,750,000 + KRW 1,50,000 on the basis of fine) Defendant C: 2,050,000 (=amount exceeding allowances or daily allowances of KRW 300,000 + attorney’s fees of KRW 1,750,000).

Defendants: Determination on the Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Crime No. 1-A of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the holding on the violation of prohibition of installation, etc. of facilities, restriction on automobile use, and election campaign period;

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant did not instruct the operation of the vehicle as stated in its reasoning for election campaign, and the above vehicle was operated for the purpose of promotion of AM held on April 9, 2016 by the Defendant, a foundation (hereinafter referred to as the “Foundation”) in which the board of directors is the head of the board of directors, and on April 9, 2016. The foregoing vehicle does not indicate any term related to the election.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the Defendant’s photograph, who is a candidate, is not in accordance with the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, and operates the vehicle as part of the election campaign.

1) Q driving the said vehicle stated that Q was given the Defendant’s specific instructions on the operating hours or routes of the vehicle. At the time Q was given a map showing the scope of the vehicle operation area from the Defendant’s driver, and the fact that Q was discovered several calls during the vehicle operation period between the Defendant and the Defendant’s driver and the Defendant’s driver, etc. are supported by the said statement.

2) It is recognized that the said vehicle was mobilized for an AM event on April 9, 2016. However, in light of the following circumstances, the said vehicle was used in connection with an election campaign, and it cannot be deemed that it was used merely for the purpose of promoting the Foundation or promoting its events.

① The aforementioned vehicles were manufactured for the first purpose of election campaign, with the answer that the registration of two election vehicles is not allowed by the election commission while they were manufactured for the purpose of election campaign, and the election-related phrases were removed, using photographs identical to the candidate’s publicity photographs, and the phrases related to the publicity of the event were not entirely stated.

② The Defendant entered into a contract for a vehicle leasing with the Defendant that supplies the said vehicle for 0 hours and operated within the constituency of the Defendant unrelated to the area where the event was held, in addition to the mobilization of the said vehicle for two hours on April 9, 2016, when the period for the said vehicle leasing overlaps with the period for the election campaign (AM was scheduled to be held between 1:0-16:00 on April 9, 2016).

③ On April 8, 2016, the election commission received control and pointed out on the grounds that the above vehicle is likely to violate the Public Official Election Act by using the Defendant’s photograph, a candidate’s photograph, but the Defendant subsequently instructed the Defendant to continue to operate the vehicle while promoting the Foundation.

2. The crime No. 1-b of the holding

A. Summary of the assertion

In a situation where it is impossible to know whether the sound facilities and visual equipment of the vehicle are properly operated, they are operated only in a trial, and there was no purpose or intention of slander, and most of the main contents are based on true facts and are related to the public interest.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, it is determined that the Defendant’s act of sending words in relation to the other party’s candidate to the electronic display board was the primary motive for the reduction of the other party’s candidate or the private interest in helping the other party to fall out of the board. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

1) In the process of determining the sending of the phrase as indicated in its holding, the Defendant took a warning from other employees, including election campaign workers and foundations AH, to the effect that there is a risk of being controlled ( contrary to this, the Defendant decided not to use the said phrase as a campaign speech slogan according to the advice of the election campaign workers N. to the effect that the Defendant is likely to be controlled). (2) At the time, the AI, which was in charge of preparing the phrase, stated that the Defendant prepared the phrase as stated in its reasoning, “for this purpose, the Defendant was going to be elected to get a candidate for U, and changed to the contents that are more factoring than the abstract contents.”

3) On the ground that the phrase on the electronic sign board was sent over two days before it was controlled by the Ngu Election Commission, and there was no circumstance to deem that any error was found in the transmission of sound or image during that process, and thus, cannot be deemed that the phrase was sent within the meaning of the consent merely. Even if the phrase was sent during the process of the test, insofar as the phrase was cut out for a considerable period of time against an unspecified number of electors, its legal evaluation would affect the legal assessment.

shall not be required.

4) The content of the text of the judgment was written on the basis of articles reported as "AO" on October 2014, and articles reported as "AP" on March 2016, and on the basis of the articles reported as "AP" on March 2016, but it was further intended to have a fluorize U candidates beyond the evaluation of their political capabilities by using dynamic signs such as "AP" and "influor" and "influor", and thus, it is deemed that there is a major intention to fluorate and lose U candidates as a human being.

3. As to the spread of printed materials by unlawful means, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment, asserts that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment, did not instruct B and C to spread the name cards as stated in the judgment, and that the contents as indicated in the order are true, and thus, there is a face for public interest. However, B and C consistently stated that the Defendant received two straws for the sake of public interest while giving a specific order to spread the name cards; on April 9, 2016, the day of the crime, the Defendant’s statement that he returned to B and C with the crime place as stated in the judgment of the Defendant; the Defendant inserted the contents of U candidate in the name of the police station was intended to change to a candidate different from that of the Twit Party, and that there was no reason to accept the Defendant’s statement directly from the police room or the apartment entrance, etc. (this part of the Defendant’s statement that was rejected by the prosecutor’s office, but no reason exists to acknowledge the Defendant’s new statement or alteration of Q.

4. Money and other valuables related to election campaigns and illegal disbursement of political funds - No. 1-D. of the facts constituting the crime;

A. Summary of the assertion

The excessive amount of money for election campaign workers is paid at actual expenses or cases, and the attorney's fees and fine is paid from the place of law, so there was no intention to violate the Public Official Election Act.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the Defendant may fully recognize that there was an intentional intent to pay the money as stated in its reasoning in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

1) B and C consistently made a statement to the effect that they received KRW 120,000,000,000 per day as an allowance under the agreement with the Defendant in connection with the election campaign. At the time of AR carrying out the business of driving vehicles, the Defendant expressed to the effect that the daily wage for the election campaign workers was KRW 120,000,000.

2) AA and AB, who worked as an election campaign worker, stated at the time that there was no discussion about the issue of payment of additional money for overtime work as well as the amount of the defendant's allowance, etc.

3) The Defendant stated in the prosecution to the effect that he was aware of the fact that money and valuables that can be paid as allowances, etc. are limited to KRW 70,000 per day in connection with election campaign, and support the fact that the amount actually paid to B and C, etc. is calculated based on KRW 70,000 per day is recognized by the Defendant.

4) With respect to the amount of money such as attorney’s fees, AD attorney stated that he/she had expressed that he/she would confirm whether the said amount constitutes election expenses when he/she entered into an issue of issuing tax invoices. The Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that he/she asked the election commission to the said amount, but the election commission did not have received any inquiries related thereto.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

1) Violation of each Public Official Election Act due to election campaign violating restrictions on the use of automobiles

[Determination of Punishment] Election Crimes, Illegal Election Campaign, and Type 2 (Violation of Methods of Election Campaign)

[Special Persons] Election Day:

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] A violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the Election Campaign Period for the Election Campaign, 4 months to one year, or 100 to 4 million won.

[Determination of type] Election Crimes, Violation of Election Campaign Period, and Type 2 (Violation of Election Campaign Period)

[Special Persons] Election Day:

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, 1-8 months of imprisonment, or 100-3 million won of fine) a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a candidate's corruption

[Determination of Type] Election Offense, Election Offense, Election Exclusions for Candidates, and Type 1 (Slanders for Candidates)

[Special Convicted Persons] A person under way: In case of gambling on the election day;

A mitigated person: Where the degree of the candidate's secret is weak;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money and valuables related to election campaigns, 1-8 months of imprisonment, or 100-3 million won of fine;

[Determination of Type] Election Crimes, Purchase, and Type 2 (General Purchase)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and 4 months;

5) Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to violation of prohibition of installation, etc. of facilities, and dissemination of printed materials by illegal means, and violation of the Political Funds Act: The sentencing criteria are not set.

6) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months or for not less than one million won;

B. Each of the instant crimes committed by the sentence decision is to eliminate the legislative intent of the Public Official Election Act and the Political Funds Act aimed at the development of democratic politics by preventing the denial regarding the fair and transparent electoral district, election and political funds in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures. Moreover, upon the commencement of an investigation, the Defendant is not only required to conceal the crime but also the attitude to reduce his/her responsibility.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine for the defendant. Each of the crimes of this case does not seem to have a significant impact on the result of the election (the ratio of the defendant's votes was 0.98% as a result of the ballot counting) and the U.S. member expressed his intention that he does not want the punishment against the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime.

2. Defendant B, C

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

1) Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the receipt of money or valuables related to election campaigns

[Determination of Type] Election Crimes, Purchase and Understanding, and Type 2 (General Purchase)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and 4 months;

2) Violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the spread of printed matters under the illegal method

The sentencing criteria are not set.

3) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months or determination of sentence;

The Defendants’ respective crimes of this case are likely to undermine the fairness and transparency of the election, and the liability for such crimes is not easy. However, in order to punish daily allowances, the Defendants were merely involved in A’s election campaign, and do not seem to have any significant impact on the result of the election. The Defendants did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the Defendants did not cooperate in the investigation of the same kind of crime at the latest and later, the Defendants’ favorable circumstances should also be considered. In addition, the Defendants’ age, character, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime

presiding judge, judges, vibration

Judges Park Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jae-nam

1) Defendant B was reported as election campaign workers on April 1, 2016 to the Ngu election commission, but Defendant B’s consistent statements revealed as follows.

The defendant B may recognize the fact that he carried out an election campaign from April 3, 2016, as described in paragraph 2-B(2) of the judgment, that he/she carried out a false statement from the defendant A.

There was a statement to the effect that “from April 3, 2016,” even if the police conducted the first suspect investigation on April 14, 2016, it was requested to do so, and that it was working from April 3, 2016.”

(c)

2) The written indictment is written as " April 19, 2016," but it seems that it is a clerical error.

(iii)an election criminal and another election criminal in the ordinary concurrent relationship with the criminal, without asking whether the most severe crime under the punishment is an election criminal;

All crimes in the ordinary concurrent relationship shall be treated as election crimes in total, and this part of those crimes in the relationship of concurrent crimes with other election crimes.

No separate sentence provided for in Article 18 (3) of the Public Official Election Act shall be imposed on the violation of each Political Fund Act.

4) On April 11, 2016, after the commission of the crime, the defense counsel presented e-mail that the defendant received from the promotional producer, but the defendant presented;

The above e-mail contains only the content that the file was corrected at the Defendant’s request, thereby supporting such circumstances.

It cannot be viewed that it should not be considered.

5) In this regard, the defense counsel asserts that the amount of KRW 7,50,00,00 paid to B and C in excess of the statutory limit cannot be deemed to have been paid as a result to the taxi engineers employed by B for an election campaign. However, the aforementioned argument by the defense counsel is without merit, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff consistently stated that B and C received money and valuables exceeding the statutory limit as above; (b) not only conforms to the statements made by the relevant persons but also lacks motive to make a false statement unfavorable to the Defendant while accepting criminal punishment; and (c) the receipt to the effect that he/she received the allowances ( even though he/she stated that B did not know thereof) cannot be deemed to contravene the above statement made by B and C, and thus, the aforementioned argument by the defense counsel is without merit.