Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Kim Chang-soo

Law Firm, Pacific, Attorney Kim Yong-hwan et al.)

Ulsan District Court Decision 2008Gohap264 Decided November 4, 2008

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Defendant 2 expressed his intention of refusal clearly upon receiving the request from Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 1 for the payment of the allowance to the telephone campaignmen, and eventually, Defendant 1, who was responsible for the telephone campaign room (so called “TM”), was unable to persuade Defendant 2, and requested Nonindicted 3 to pay the allowance to the telephone campaignmen to Nonindicted 1.

However, the court below recognized the critical credibility of Non-Indicted 1's statement, which is the direct and only evidence of this case, because of the lack of credibility in various objective circumstances, and recognized that Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1, etc. to pay allowances prohibited by the Public Official Election Act to Non-Indicted 1, etc., and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below (the defendants: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) Nonindicted 1’s statement and summary of the Defendants’ assertion

Nonindicted 1 stated that Nonindicted 3 received allowances from Nonindicted 3, who was instructed by Defendant 2, after the third interrogation of the prosecution, requested the Defendants to pay allowances in sequence from the trial court and the trial court to the trial court.

As to this, the Defendants and Nonindicted 3 stated that Defendant 1 independently requested Nonindicted 3 to pay allowances on the wind that Defendant 2 refused to pay the full payment of allowances, and Defendant 2 did not participate in the crime. The above statements made by Nonindicted 1 were derived from Nonindicted 1’s purchase of Nonindicted 5 Yangsan market in order to nullify Nonindicted 4’s election because the relationship between Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5 Yangsan market was rapidly aggravated immediately after the election, and thus, Nonindicted 1 made a statement inconsistent with the facts or inconsistent with objective facts by making a false statement different from the facts. Thus, it asserts that such statement made by Nonindicted 1 is not reliable.

Therefore, I will examine the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's statement in the lower court.

(2) Facts recognized

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, and the defendants do not dispute this point.

(A)personal relations and roles;

Defendant 1, which was implemented on April 9, 2008, directed the telephone election campaign during the election campaign period for the National Assembly member, as a member of Nonindicted 4 who was elected in the election district for the 18th National Assembly member in Yangsan-si, the election district for the 18th National Assembly member.

Defendant 2, as a person in charge of accounting of the election campaign office, was the wife of the candidate for Nonindicted 4 and the election campaign office, managed all of the monetary revenues and expenditures incurred in operating the election campaign office for Nonindicted 4.

Nonindicted 1, as the team leader of the above telephone election campaign, recruited the mobilized members of the election campaign, handled the affairs such as their decision-making and management, the collection of the results of the telephone election campaign, and the report thereof. Nonindicted 1 was the team leader of the telephone election campaign through the introduction of Nonindicted 6, who was on duty as the chief secretary of the post office of Nonindicted 5 in the Yangsan market, retired from his office at his direction and aided Nonindicted 4’s election campaign.

On March 25, 2008, Nonindicted 3, as the seat of Nonindicted 4 candidate, attempted various activities of the election campaign office by purchasing goods necessary for the ceremony of opening Nonindicted 4’s election campaign office.

(b) Circumstances of the telephone election campaign

The telephone election campaign was carried out by 25 telephone election campaign workers from March 27, 2008 to April 8, 2008, which was established in the election campaign office from March 27, 2008, the day before the election of the National Assembly members, in order to publicize the candidates for Nonindicted 4, who were called the so-called "CM" without any special connection at Yangsan-si, and to legitimacy support thereof.

In the telephone election campaign office, 10 cost of equipment was installed, and Defendant 2 leased the equipment and paid the cost of KRW 5 million.

(C) Circumstances for the payment of allowances to the telephone campaignmen

On March 208 or at the beginning of April, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 asked Defendant 1 to pay allowances of 60,000 won per day to the telephone campaign workers. On the same day, Nonindicted Party 1 also requested Defendant 2 to exercise overall control over the monetary expenditure of the election campaign office.

Non-Indicted 1 received 25 million won from Non-Indicted 3 on April 4, 2008 and April 7, 2008, from Non-Indicted 3, for the telephone campaign workers and 16.9 million won in cash on his own account of his own allowances, and kept them in his own house at the election campaign office on April 8, 2008, and divided the allowances into the members of the election campaign teams who completed the election campaign as described in Article 3-b. (1) of the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below at the telephone campaign office on April 8, 2008. The bags containing the allowances were immediately recovered, and the bags containing the allowances were disposed of in the garbage bags after they were immediately recovered.

On April 1, 2008, Nonindicted 3 issued a total of KRW 16,90,00 to Nonindicted 1 twice as above with funds raised from ○○ Industrial Company Co., Ltd. (the representative of Nonindicted 7, his mother, the representative of Nonindicted 7), etc. from borrowing KRW 10,000 from ○○ Industrial Company Co., Ltd. (the representative of Nonindicted 7) who works for the head of the business, and received a written confirmation recognizing the receipt of the above funds from Nonindicted 1 every time.

(D) Circumstances of the instant accusation

On April 8, 2008, the election commission was informed of the fact that Nonindicted 4 paid allowances to telephone campaign workers at the election campaign office for Nonindicted 4, the election campaign commission visited the above election campaign office, collected tear bags found in the telephone campaign room room and other waste bags, and investigated whether the allowances were paid to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 8, etc., but denied suspicion by asserting that they were volunteer service.

Accordingly, on April 11, 2008, the election commission filed an accusation against Nonindicted 9, the election campaign manager of Nonindicted 4 candidate, Defendant 2, the accountant in charge of accounting, and Nonindicted 1, the head of the telephone campaign team, on the charge of offering money or valuables related to the election campaign at the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office, along with related data, such as the attendance and tear of the telephone campaign team and tear bags, and related documents.

(e) Progress of the investigation

The accused case first started the investigation at the Yangsan Police Station, and it was denied that, upon the police investigation, Nonindicted Party 1, who wanted to make the envelope by calculating the allowance according to the number of days of attendance of the election campaignmen, in itself, wanting to do so without any doubt from the persons related to Nonindicted Party 4 candidate, and it was merely teared. Defendant 2 also denied that there was no all the allowances of the telephone campaignmen.

Even after being sent to the prosecution, Non-Indicted 1 completely denied the suspicion as in the police investigation until the time of the second interrogation. However, after being detained on July 3, 2008 and after the third interrogation on July 7, 2008, Non-Indicted 1 led to the confession of all the crimes. The contents of Non-Indicted 1 demanded the Defendants to pay a telephone campaign worker’s allowance in sequential order, and demanded Non-Indicted 1 to pay his own allowance. The Defendants consented, and Non-Indicted 1 introduced Non-Indicted 1 to the account room in the election campaign office on April 3, 2008, and introduced Non-Indicted 3 as well as to the effect that Non-Indicted 3 would pay money. In fact, Non-Indicted 3 was paid allowances twice from Non-Indicted 3.

Accordingly, although the prosecutor made an investigation into Nonindicted 3 as a suspect, Nonindicted 3 voluntarily provided money and valuables to the telephone campaignmen on his own, and asked him to the effect that he does not have any relation with the Defendants, even at this time, Defendant 1 denied the fact that he was requested by Nonindicted 1 to pay a telephone campaign worker’s allowance from Nonindicted 1, and Defendant 2 rejected the demand for payment of an allowance to volunteers twice from Nonindicted 1, on July 29, 2008 at the prosecutor’s investigation conducted on July 29, 2008, only refused the demand for payment of an allowance to volunteers on two occasions from Nonindicted 1 and 3, and all Nonindicted 1 statements, including that there was only a lot of money and valuables in the account room, along with Nonindicted 1 and 3, were stated as false statements.

Meanwhile, on August 21, 2008, Nonindicted 3, who was detained on the charge of offering money and valuables, was released on bail on August 21, 2008, and on the same day, Defendant 2 rejected Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 1’s request for payment of allowances from Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 1, who was in contact with Nonindicted 3 and found Nonindicted 3 as the account room, again, was refused to pay allowances from Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 3 requested for payment of allowances and consulted with Nonindicted 3’s consent. In addition, Nonindicted 3 submitted a written statement to the prosecution that “after that immediately thereafter, Nonindicted 3 sent Nonindicted 1 to the account room and promised to pay allowances.” From that date, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3 began to make a statement corresponding thereto, and Defendants and Nonindicted 3 maintained such statements until the original trial and the court of the trial.

(3) Determination

(A) First, we examine whether Nonindicted 1 has a reason to make a false statement.

Although Nonindicted 1 had intended to be elected as a candidate for Nonindicted 4 by managing the telephone campaign workers at the election campaign office of Nonindicted 4 and reporting the result thereof, he argues that his statement is merely an ordinary family register, and that there is no reason to make a false statement on the sensitive and important issues that make it possible to decide the success of Nonindicted 4 in the position that he is subject to criminal punishment due to such a statement.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the relationship between Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5 Yangsan market was rapidly aggravated immediately after the election, and that Nonindicted 5 Yangsan market had Nonindicted 1 executed a false statement in order to nullify Nonindicted 4’s election.

According to Non-Indicted 10’s testimony, etc., Non-Indicted 2, who is the husband of Non-Indicted 1, has a close relationship with Non-Indicted 5 Yangsan market. Non-Indicted 2, among Non-Indicted 37 cases ordered in Yangsan City, ordered 10 cases of government-funded construction in 2005, which was in fact managed or related to Non-Indicted 2, and Non-Indicted 1 has a close relationship with Non-Indicted 11, which is the denial of Non-Indicted 5 Yangsan market. Non-Indicted 1 himself also maintained a close relationship with Non-Indicted 11, which is the denial of Non-Indicted 5 Yangsan market. In addition, at the time of Non-Indicted 5 going through the election, Non-Indicted 4 candidates and Non-Indicted 5 Yangsan market, it is recognized that there was a difference between them and until now after the election, and Non-Indicted 1 made a statement at an investigative agency, etc. to reduce or conceal the friendly relationship between their husband and non-Indicted 5 couple.

However, it is difficult to expect that Nonindicted 1 made a false statement to realize the plan that Nonindicted 5's election of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea, after Nonindicted 5 made the election of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member of the National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea, which led Nonindicted 4 to the success of the Korean National Assembly member in the next market election, and the next market election would be the opportunity for Nonindicted 1's confession of the crime of this case. However, it is difficult to expect that Nonindicted 5's two markets made the election of the Korean National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea invalidated the election of the National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea, which led Nonindicted 4 to the election of the Korean National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea and the election of the Republic of Korea National Assembly member of the Republic of Korea.

In addition, it is difficult to see that Nonindicted 1 was subject to criminal punishment on the sole basis of the relationship between Nonindicted 5 Yangsan market and its denial and made a false statement. Ultimately, it may be viewed that Nonindicted 2, who carries on the business based on Yangsan City, is helpful to the business of Nonindicted 2, who is the husband, and made a false statement in order to be helpful to the business of Nonindicted 2, who is the husband. However, in this case where both citizens are interested, it is more likely that Nonindicted 2, who gather the candidate elected to the National Assembly member, rather than the profits gained when he gather the candidate elected to the National Assembly member, and it is difficult to see that Nonindicted 1, who is his weak body, was detained and subject to criminal punishment on the part of Nonindicted 1, who was subject to criminal punishment.

Rather, until being detained, Nonindicted 1 actively concealed the crime by paying allowances to the election campaignmen at the morning and recovering and destroying money, and by ordering the telephone election campaign workers to make a statement that there was no actual payment of allowances in advance. On April 12, 2008, Nonindicted 1 was subject to seizure and search on his residence and automobiles, etc., and on July 3, 2008, Nonindicted 1 was detained on the ground that Nonindicted 1 was offered money and valuables to the election campaign workers or expressed his intent to offer money and valuables (see, e.g., evidence record 1,534 pages), and Nonindicted 4’s election campaign and reduced or concealed the crime committed by Nonindicted 4, while helping the election campaigners to reduce or conceal the payment of allowances due to his detention, etc., and stated that he was paid allowances from the previous Defendants.

(B) Meanwhile, in the course of Nonindicted 1’s statement after being examined by the investigative agency as a witness at the original trial and the court of the trial, it was necessary to reverse some contradictory statements or partial statements. Nonindicted 1 attempted to assist Nonindicted 5’s election campaign at the time of Nonindicted 5’s election, and to engage in activities in a group of friendship with other states, but basically, sent a bad day, such as: (a) soliciting, managing, and reporting on the result of the election campaign for the remaining ten days of the election campaign; (b) Nonindicted 1 was under a highly serious investigation with the Defendants and election campaign workers more than 10 times, including a large number of examinations with the Defendants and election campaign workers; (c) Nonindicted 1 was hospitalized and hospitalized in the hospital by being investigated by the first election commission; and (d) Nonindicted 1 was likely to distort or distort for the first time during the election campaign for Nonindicted 4’s election campaign at the time of the first election; and (d) Nonindicted 1 could not fully state any part of credibility.

At the time of the first examination of the suspect, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to Nonindicted Party 1 on March 2008, or on April 1, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to Nonindicted Party 2 at the time of the first examination of the suspect, and Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to Nonindicted Party 3: (a) that Nonindicted Party 2 was to be aware of Nonindicted Party 1’s daily allowance, including the fluoral value, and that Nonindicted Party 2’s daily allowance was 60,000,000 won; (b) Defendant 1 made a statement to Nonindicted Party 2 at the beginning of April 2008; (c) that Nonindicted Party 1 was to be aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 3 was to be aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 2 was to be aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 3 was to be aware of the fact that Nonindicted Party 2 was to be aware of the remaining 60,000 won’s daily allowance; and (d) Nonindicted Party 2 was given to Defendant 3’s daily allowance.

(C) As to this, the Defendants requested the payment of allowances to Defendant 2 at the end of March 2008 or at the beginning of April 2008, and the part on which Nonindicted Party 1 stated that “Defendant 2 accepted it.” The Defendants asserted that: (a) although Nonindicted Party 1 demanded the payment of allowances to Defendant 1 first before Defendant 2, the existence of Defendant 1 intentionally or at the time of the first confession, the existence of Defendant 1 was pointed out and stated first; (b) Nonindicted Party 1 was promised to receive allowances from Defendant 1 who is the birth of the candidate; and (c) even though Nonindicted Party 1 did not immediately find Defendant 2, who did not need to make the same demand, it is difficult to see that Nonindicted Party 1 “it is necessary to know that Defendant 2 is aware of it”; (b) in light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 cannot be seen as a general family note that it was extremely usual due to a clerical statement, it is difficult to gain it in light of the fact that it is difficult to do not know it.

However, as seen above, the person who was accused of Nonindicted Party 1 in relation to the payment of allowances by the election commission until July 7, 2008, except for Nonindicted Party 1, who was the election campaign manager, Nonindicted Party 9 and Defendant 2, the accountant in charge, and the prosecution investigation was conducted mainly on Defendant 2. Thus, it is difficult to deny the credibility of the statement given that Nonindicted Party 1 mentioned Defendant 2 first, and Defendant 2 was in charge of the management of money in the election campaign office as a person in charge of accounting of the election campaign office. Thus, it is difficult to say that Nonindicted Party 1 again talked Defendant 2 after receiving the promise from Defendant 1, and that the statement is contrary to the empirical rule or inconsistent with each other.

(D) The Defendants also state that Nonindicted 1 promised to pay 10,000 won per day on March 2008 or on April 208, the first request for payment was made by Defendant 2; ① Nonindicted 1 stated that he separately requested the payment of his allowance even if he could request the payment of his allowance when he requested other telephone campaign workers; ② Nonindicted 1 stated that the payment of his allowance was made by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 by considering that the payment of the telephone campaign workers’ allowance was “it must be known to Defendant 2”; ② Nonindicted 1 received the promise by both Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, while receiving the promise by Defendant 1 only and receiving the promise, it was difficult to believe that the portion of the promise to pay his allowance was not contradictory to that of Defendant 2. However, it is difficult to say that the portion of the promise to pay Nonindicted 1’s allowance was not notified to Defendant 2.

However, even if Nonindicted Party 1, as a family owner, took out the phone campaigner’s allowance under his own responsibility in advance, he could not easily see the family form, and as long as there was no personal-friendly relationship with Nonindicted Party 4 candidate, he could have been able to take the word up to his own allowance. Defendant 1 who had frequently contacted with Defendant 1 by reporting the election campaign result, etc., discussed about his allowance, and then Defendant 2 first asked Defendant 1 to pay the allowance and did not receive the promise, and thus, it cannot be said that Nonindicted Party 1’s statement is inconsistent with each other on the ground that Defendant 2 did not separately request the payment of the allowance and did not receive the promise.

(E) In addition, the Defendants asserted that, on April 3, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 made a false statement that he and Nonindicted Party 3 were the accountant room in the election campaign office, and that, on March 29, 2008, the part that Nonindicted Party 1 stated that “I introduced Nonindicted Party 3 by introducing him and Nonindicted Party 3” was very closely related to the preparation for opening prior to the opening of the election campaign office ( March 25, 2008), and that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to reverse Nonindicted Party 1’s telephone number and make a false statement that he had first met Nonindicted Party 3 with the introduction of Defendant 2 on April 3, 2008, in light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 had already exchanged Nonindicted Party 3 with his telephone number on March 29, 2008, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to reverse his previous telephone number and make a statement that he would have paid money retroactively from Defendant 32.

However, there is no statement that Nonindicted 1 made on April 3, 2008 that he first delivered Nonindicted 3, and there is no reversal of the statement as alleged by the Defendants, and on the other hand, Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the prosecutor’s inquiry, which asked for the reasons why Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 1 attempted to have a short telephone conversation between two seconds on March 29, 2008, the same shall apply to Nonindicted 3’s phone number on March 29, 2008 (the investigation record 2,777 pages, evidence record 272 pages), and Nonindicted 1’s above statement cannot be said to be credibility.

(F) On the other hand, on April 4, 2008 and April 7, 2008, the Defendants stated that Nonindicted 1 2 got money from Nonindicted 3’s lane on the vehicle registration number by posting his own cell phone at around 20:0 through 21:00, Defendant 2 got money from his own cell phone. However, Nonindicted 1’s cell phone (number omitted) was 16:03 and around 17:17 on April 4, 2008; Nonindicted 3 (number omitted); Nonindicted 4:0 and Defendant 1’s cell phone from April 7, 2008 to April 16:52, 208; Nonindicted 208 and Defendant 1’s cell phone from April 14, 2008 to May 28, 2008, and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3 were also unable to pay money from his own cell phone during the same period.

According to the following: (a) Nonindicted Party 1’s cell phone (number omitted) and Nonindicted Party 1’s cell phone (number omitted) on April 4, 2008 and April 7, 2008, Nonindicted Party 3 (number omitted) and Nonindicted Party 1’s cell phone number around April 16:03 and around 17:17, respectively; and (b) around April 14:00 and around 16:52, the fact that Defendant 1 ( mobile phone number omitted)’s cell phone is all true is recognized.

On the other hand, at the time of interrogation of the prosecution from July 7, 2008 to July 9, 2008, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement only that Nonindicted Party 2 gave Nonindicted Party 3’s vehicle registration number and did not make a statement on the communication media. On the other hand, on April 4, 2008 and April 7, 2008, Defendant 2 made two phone calls from his own cell phone and received money from Nonindicted Party 3, and Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that Nonindicted Party 2 received money from his office (on the other hand, Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 3’s cell phone phone phone phone phone phone phone phone phone phone call from the immediately preceding statement, and Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement that Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 2 made an election campaign using Nonindicted Party 3’s cell phone phone phone call from 20:0 to 21:00, and Nonindicted Party 3’s phone phone phone call from 1/100 to 208.

In full view of these facts and statements, it is sufficient that Nonindicted 1 made a false statement with the intention of nullifying Nonindicted 4’s election without mentioning the communication media, and even if his memory was not clear at the first time due to continuous investigation, it is sufficient for Nonindicted 1 to be aware that he was contacted with Defendant 2 by using his mobile phone and received contact through his mobile phone ( Nonindicted 1 clearly stated that he was contacted by telephone at the court of the first instance). As the Defendants asserted, if Nonindicted 5’s two markets were to make a false statement with Nonindicted 1 in order to nullify the election of Nonindicted 4’s elected, it is sufficient that Nonindicted 1 maintained the first confession that he received contact from Defendant 2 without being mentioning the communication media, or that he was directly made from Defendant 2 in the same election campaign office, and that it was not possible to inquire about the details of his phone, and that there was no possibility that he continued to make a false statement with Defendant 14 and 4’s mobile phone.

(G) On April 7, 2008, the Defendants sent text messages to the effect that Nonindicted Party 1 asked Defendant 2 to “I will no longer pay the money,” and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to “I will not see the last and present at the election campaign office.” In addition, Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to “I will know,” and Defendant 2 asked Defendant 2 to “I will see the contents of the calls presented by the prosecutor,” and Defendant 2 sent text messages to the effect that “I will not see the last and present at the place,” and accordingly, Defendant 2 sent text messages to the effect that I would see “I will see the last and present at the place,” and it is difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to call for the payment of allowances to Defendant 2 and give positive answers from Defendant 2, and it is difficult to call for the payment again, in light of the fact that there is no reason to do so by dividing Nonindicted Party 2’s text messages into two and one another, and that it is difficult to say that there is no reason to do so.

However, as seen above, Non-Indicted 1 requested the payment of the remaining allowances to Defendant 2 from the time of the first interrogation of the prosecutor's office of the third time. After that, Non-Indicted 1 received text messages from Defendant 2, and again made statement to Defendant 1 about the payment of the remaining allowances to Defendant 1 on that day. The whole part is consistent up to the trial. In particular, the fact that Non-Indicted 1 made a phone call to Defendant 1 on April 7, 2008, when he received text messages with Defendant 2, and around April 14:04, 2008, the fact that Non-Indicted 1 sent a phone to Defendant 1 is also consistent with such Non-Indicted 1's statement. If Non-Indicted 1 sent text messages to Defendant 2 at the court of the original trial, and again took it again, it cannot be said that he corrected the credibility of Non-Indicted 1's statement.

(h) Meanwhile, it is recognized that Nonindicted 1 had a doubtful part on Nonindicted 1’s statement, such as hiding Nonindicted 5’s market and its denial, even though Nonindicted 1 and her husband did not have any personal relation to Nonindicted 5’s farm, in spite of Nonindicted 2’s participation in Nonindicted 4’s election campaign through Nonindicted 6, who was the chief secretary of the Yangsan market, who was Nonindicted 5’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 5’s non-indicted 1 and her husband’s non-indicted 2 were concealed.

However, as seen above, in the situation where Nonindicted Party 2, the husband of Nonindicted Party 1, maintains a close relationship with Nonindicted Party 5, and receives business assistance, such as giving 10 out of 37 cases subject to the government-funded construction contract in 2005, which was ordered by Yangsan-si, and giving 10 cases among 37 cases subject to the government-funded construction contract, etc., which was ordered by Yangsan-si, Nonindicted Party 1 may make a true statement about such a relationship, and if it comes objectively and objectively, Nonindicted Party 2 may no longer receive such assistance. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted Party 1 makes a false statement about the demand and payment of allowances to the telephone workers by falsely stating the relationship with the Yangsan market to avoid this.

(E) In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances, there is a consistent or doubtful part among the statements made by Nonindicted 1, but this is merely intended to avoid any error or disadvantage to the husband’s business that occurred through the shock of Nonindicted 1, the main family owner, etc., and the long-term investigation process, such as questioning with other persons, or the intention to avoid disadvantages to the husband’s business. In addition, Nonindicted 1’s statements related to the instant facts charged, including the details and role of involvement in the telephone election campaign, the date, time, place, amount, and circumstance of the payment of allowances, are consistent in full view, and are judged to be credibility in accordance with objective facts.

In addition, in light of the facts found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including Nonindicted 1’s statement, in particular, Defendant 2 leased equipment necessary for the election campaign as a person in charge of accounting and paid expenses, Defendant 1’s demand for the payment of allowances from Nonindicted 1 or Defendant 1 in the election campaign office, Nonindicted 1 exchanged text messages on three occasions with Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3 borrowed money from the company that he works for, and received the confirmation document, etc., Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and ordered Nonindicted 3 to pay allowances for the election campaign workers, and accordingly, Defendant 3 paid the said allowances to Nonindicted 1.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

However, Defendant 2 did not have any history of the initial crime, and Defendant 1 did not have any other criminal record. Defendant 1 was punished once by a fine, and the contents of the crime of this case did not provide money and goods for purchasing the right holder, but paid allowances to the telephone campaign workers who attempted to engage in election campaign inside the country as compensation group for the election campaign workers. The Defendants are not particularly those who engaged in political or election-related activities, but those who were the group or group of the candidates for Nonindicted 4, and the Defendants were the group or group of the candidates for Nonindicted 4, who were first elected to the election for the first time, and were expected to play a certain role to assist the election campaign and have led to the crime of this case. Defendant 2, a person in charge of accounting, was sentenced to imprisonment or a fine exceeding three million won under Article 230 (Corrupt Practices and Inducement by Interest) of the Public Official Election Act.

However, Article 256 of the Public Official Election Act provides that the election of a candidate shall be invalidated when a person in charge of accounting of an election campaign office is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a fine of at least three million won on March 12, 2004, and the provision of money and valuables related to an election campaign regardless of the pretext, such as compensation for volunteers, is strictly prohibited. The reason why the provision of money and valuables related to an election campaign is strictly prohibited is to prevent the distortion of the public and ultimately enhance the fairness of the election by blocking various elections in Korea. In particular, Article 256 of the Public Official Election and the Prevention of Unlawful Election Act provides that the election of a candidate shall be invalidated when a person in charge of accounting of an election campaign office is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a fine of at least three million won on the basis of imprisonment with prison labor or a fine of at least three million won has been sentenced for the election of a candidate. Since then, the above revised provisions of the Public Official Election Act maintains the above revised provisions to the maximum extent possible.

Therefore, in relation to the instant case, the amount illegally provided by the Defendants to telephone campaign workers, who are not official election campaign workers, as compensation for volunteer service does not amount to KRW 16.9 million, and there are many 26 persons subject to the provision; Defendant 2, as an accountant in charge, used a method that allows them to pay allowances to election campaign workers through other persons despite having to pay only the funds under the Public Official Election Act; the Defendants attempted to reverse the statements continuously in the course of investigation and trial; and the Defendants attempted to conceal the truth of the instant case. In full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crimes, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, criminal records, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be adequate and too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case by the defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)