Defendant 1 and one other

Yellow water;

Attorney Lee Il-sung

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,00,000 and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants are confined in the Labor House for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

1,200,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants’ purchase on August 7, 2009 and the inducement for understanding are acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

1. Encouragement for purchase and understanding;

Defendant 2 is a member of the Chungcheongbuk-do Do Council, and Defendant 1 is a member of the △△△△ Gun candidate for the national simultaneous local election, which will be held on June 2, 2010, and Defendant 1 is a member of the △△ Do Council for △△ Do Council.

Except for the cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person shall offer or express an intention to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, or promise, direction, solicitation, mediation, demand or receive such offer.

On June 2009, Defendant 2 proposed that Defendant 1 would go to the election of △△ head of the △△ Gun, and Defendant 1 would come to Defendant 2 with the consent of Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 stated that “I will come to the hand,” and Defendant 2 stated that “I will go to the hand, if necessary, I want to do so.”

Since July 2009, Defendant 1 reported from around July 2009 to Defendant 2 on the circumstances of the activities of the head of △△△△△△, the activity situation of the head of △△△△△△ Group, and the analysis of the market tax related to the election of the head of △△△△△△△△△△ to be conducted on June 2, 201. Defendant 2 performed election campaign and election-related duties, such as sending text messages to party members or driving vehicles

Defendant 2, around July 2009, talked with the wife Nonindicted 1 that “Defendant 1 is a well harming our country,” and Defendant 1, around July 2009, found Defendant 1 on Nonindicted 1’s operation of △△△△△-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, △△△-gun, △△△△△-gun, the operation of Nonindicted 1, thereby making it known to the effect that “the amount of expense to be reduced to KRW 300,000 won” was 30,000 won in cash from Nonindicted 1.

After all, Defendant 1 received 300,000 won in cash, 300,000 won in cash around August 2009, 300,000 won in cash around September 2009, and 300,000 won in cash around October 2009.

2. Unlawful election campaigns and advance election campaigns by the Defendants;

No one shall distribute, post, post, or show, or have another person distribute, post, post, or display any advertisement, personnel management ledger, poster, photograph, document, picture, picture, printed matter, printed matter, recording, video tape or other things similar thereto, which indicate the name (including a person who intends to become a candidate) of a candidate, in order to influence the election from 180 days from the time when the reason for holding the election becomes final to the election day, and no one shall carry out or have another person carry out an election campaign before the election campaign period by means other than those prescribed by the Public Official Election Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendants: (a) around September 24, 2009, on the grounds of the loss of eligibility for election by a member of the National Assembly in the Chungcheongbuk-gun, △△△, Jincheon-gun election district, and Nonindicted 7 of the National Assembly on October 28, 2009, on the special election of the member of the National Assembly, around October 8, 2009, determined the official ceiling of Nonindicted 2 candidates for △△ Group; (b) for the above Nonindicted 2 candidate election campaign and on June 2, 2010 of Defendant 2, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to send a fixed text message related to the election of △△△△△△△ Group to Defendant 2 via telephone, and Defendant 1 sent a large phone number of Defendant 7/7 of △△△△△△ Group to Defendant 2, who was Defendant 1’s phone number posted to △△△△ Group, Defendant 2, who was Defendant 1’s phone number omitted from October 13:27, 2009.

As a result, the Defendants conspired on October 28, 2009, sent text messages to Nonindicted 2 candidates for the special election of the National Assembly members, and, at the same time, carried out prior election campaigns related to Defendant 2 candidates in relation to the election of △△ head of Gun on June 2, 2010.

2. A prior election campaign by Defendant 1;

From October 2, 2009 to October 08:50 to May 5, 2009, the Defendant sent text messages to 654 members of the △△△△△ Council of △△△△△ Group by using the above Internet site △△△△ (www. △△.com) service at the above Defendant’s home, and succeeded in transmitting text messages to 466 among them as indicated in the annexed crime list 2.

Accordingly, in relation to the election of the head of △△△ on June 2, 2010, the Defendant carried out a prior election campaign in relation to Defendant 2 candidate.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 2;

1. Each of the witness Nonindicted 3 and 4’s legal statements

1. Partial statement in the questionnaire on Nonindicted 1

1. ☆☆☆캡쳐화면, ☆☆☆사용내역, ☆☆☆당원명단

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Each of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 9785 of Jul. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same) Articles 230(1)5 and 4, and 135(3) (each of the received money and valuables) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 254(3) and (2) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of prior election); Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the former Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of distributing documents and drawings by unlawful means);

B. Defendant 2: Articles 230(3) and 230(1)4 of the former Public Official Election Act, Article 135(3) (each provision of money or goods), Article 254(3) and (2) of the former Public Official Election Act, Article 30 (Advance election campaign) of the Criminal Act, Articles 255(2)5 and 93(1) of the former Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the distribution of documents and paintings by unlawful means);

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: proviso to Article 236 of the former Public Official Election Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The purpose of the Public Official Election Act is to ensure that elections under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Local Autonomy Act are held fairly in accordance with the free will of the people and democratic procedures, and to contribute to the development of democratic politics by preventing any malpractice related to elections. In particular, the purpose of prohibiting advance election campaigns in the Public Official Election Act is to prevent excessive competition among candidates as the difficulty in election management, and it is difficult to prevent unfair competition among candidates, and it also requires excessive expenses and efforts for the long-term competition among candidates to cause severe socioeconomic loss and social and economic losses. The crime of this case by the defendants is against the legislative purpose of the Public Official Election Act and the intent of prohibiting advance election. The defendants' punishment is necessary because they do not recognize the crimes. However, the defendants do not have the same criminal power, and the contents of the crimes are merely sending text messages, or are giving and receiving money and valuables, as a whole, shall be determined as ordered.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 2 is a member of the Chungcheongbuk-do Do Council, and Defendant 1 is a member of the △△△△ Gun candidate for the national simultaneous local election, which will be held on June 2, 2010, and Defendant 1 is a member of the △△ Do Council for △△ Do Council.

Except for the cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person shall offer or express an intention to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, or promise, direction, solicitation, mediation, demand or receive such offer.

Defendant 1 found in the above ○ Agricultural Chemicals on August 2009, and demanded Nonindicted 1 to pay money to Nonindicted 1, “I need to lend money,” and Nonindicted 1 stated the above fact to Defendant 2, who is the husband at that time, and Defendant 2 stated that “I am soon as soon as I am bad if I am able to help in the internal election of △△ head of the △△△ head of the Gun.”

Accordingly, around August 7, 2009, Nonindicted Party 1 remitted 15 million won to the Agricultural Cooperative passbook (Account Number omitted) in Defendant 1’s name according to the above Defendant 2’s order.

2. Determination

A. Defendants’ legal actions

Article 135 (3) of the former Public Official Election Act provides that anyone may not offer or express his/her intention to offer money, goods, or other benefits, or offer his/her promise, instruction, solicitation, mediation, demand, or receive any money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, other compensation for volunteer service, etc. Except for cases where allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits are provided pursuant to the provisions of this Act. Article 230 (1) 4, 5, and Article 230 (3) of the same Act provides that anyone shall be punished by a person who expresses or promises to offer money, goods, or other benefits in connection with an election campaign regardless of the pretext such as allowances, actual expenses, and other compensation for volunteer service, regardless of the pretext thereof.

Therefore, in order to recognize that Defendants violated the above provision, it should be recognized that Defendant 1 received KRW 15 million from Nonindicted Party 1 as of August 7, 2009, from Defendant 2’s order in relation to the election campaign.

However, the Defendants consistently asserted that Defendant 1’s receipt of KRW 15 million on August 7, 2009 through the Nonindicted Party 1’s account from the police and the prosecution to this court is merely merely a personal loan from Nonindicted Party 1, and that Defendant 1 is not related to the election campaign, such as the withdrawal of the candidate for the △△△ military election by Defendant 2.

B. Review of the legal principles on the degree of proof of guilt and the evidence consistent with the facts charged

The burden of proof for the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do4737, Feb. 24, 2006, etc.).

However, even according to the facts charged in itself, it is unclear whether Defendant 1 paid 15 million won in return for Defendant 2’s election campaign in return for Defendant 2’s election campaign, because Defendant 1 referred to as “a person who assists in an election, so he is not a bad,” and Defendant 2 sent 15 million won to Defendant 2.

Meanwhile, even if it can be interpreted that the above facts charged were paid in relation to the election campaign, there are only the statements in the respective answers to the defendants and non-indicted 1, each of the written statements by the election commission investigating the defendants and non-indicted 3, 4, and 5, and the statements by the prosecutor's office, which are the employees of the election commission that investigated the defendants and non-indicted 1 in the course of investigation by the election commission, and the evidence that is not admissible or insufficient to recognize this part of the

(1) First, the Defendants and their defense counsel did not recognize the content on the date of trial, and thus, they cannot be used as evidence.

The part of the statement that KRW 15 million paid to Defendant 1 among the written answer to Nonindicted 1 constitutes Defendant 2’s contingent remuneration or prepaid payment related to Defendant 2’s election of △△△△△. Nonindicted 1 appears as a witness and denies the actual authenticity of the above part by making a statement that it is written differently from his own statement. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 5, an employee of the election commission who investigated Nonindicted 1, made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 1, as a witness in this court, was written in the election commission’s statement. However, it is difficult to view that the above Nonindicted 5’s statement constitutes “other objective methods” under Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is difficult to deem that the actual authenticity was established solely with the statement made by Nonindicted 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the actual authenticity of the above part of the statement. Accordingly, the part of the statement on contingent remuneration and prepaid payment in the written answer to Nonindicted 1 is inadmissible.

Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “If a person who made the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, overseas residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause,” the above statement does not constitute “where a person who made the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause” as provided in Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the above statement cannot be admitted as admissibility of evidence, since it does not constitute “where a person who made the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause.”

x) In addition, Non-Indicted 3 appeared as witness on the second trial date, and Defendant 1 appeared to frankly in the name of the contingent fee, and Defendant 1 asked the contingent fee in detail by taking a fluoring fluoring friend of the contingent fee, and stated that he does not have to pay the contingent fee in the election, and that he does not have to pay it in full. The above statement does not contain any clear contents about the specific contents or nature of the contingent fee, and in particular, it is insufficient to recognize that the nature of the above money falls under the advance payment of the contingent fee related to the election campaign △△△△ head, on the sole basis of the above statement made by Non-Indicted 3.

In addition, since Non-Indicted 4 also appeared as a witness on the second trial date and asked for the success fee at the election commission at the time of investigation, whether the success fee was 15 million won if the success fee was paid, and the reason why the letter of loan was prepared, etc., it is difficult to conclude that the nature of the 15 million won paid to Defendant 1 as the contingent fee paid to Defendant 1 is the contingent fee paid in advance in relation to the election of △△ head of the △△△ Gun, even though Defendant 2 did not accept even if he received it and received it, the contents of Defendant 2’s statement included in the above statement can also be interpreted as the case where Defendant 2 received a loan certificate and lent it to Defendant 1.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant 2 ordered Nonindicted 3 and 4’s prosecutor’s office and court testimony to Nonindicted 1, his wife, and paid the above money to Defendant 1 under the pretext of the advance payment of contingent fees related to the △△ Military election, and there is no other evidence to support that the above money was paid in connection with the election campaign.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

[Attachment Table 1, 2 omitted]

Judges Kim So-young (Presiding Judge)