Defendant 1 and 10 others

Park Ma-young

Attorneys Cho Chang-chul et al.

Defendant 1’s imprisonment; Defendant 2’s imprisonment; Defendant 3, 4, and 5’s fine of KRW 2,00,000; Defendant 6, 7, 8(Defendant 7 of the Supreme Court judgment); Defendant 9, 10, and 11’s fine of KRW 1,00,00, respectively.

Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 did not pay the above fine, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 1 shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A penalty of KRW 147,970,000 shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. Defendant 1

On May 31, 2006, the Defendant won the 4th local election, which was implemented on May 31, 2006, to ○○○ City. On January 16, 2007, the resident support at the Daegu District Court rendered a fine of 2.5 million won equivalent to the invalidation of election due to the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, and the Defendant’s branch members, such as Nonindicted Party 1 clan (Defendant clan in the judgment of the Supreme Court), who became aware of the Defendant’s seat, provided the Defendant with money to use it at the attorney’s expense in the appellate trial in the above case of violation of the Public Official Election Act

In collusion with the wife Nonindicted 2 on January 22, 2007, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from Nonindicted 3, who representing Nonindicted 1 clans at the Defendant’s home ( Address 1 omitted), as attorney fees, from January 2007 to April 13, 2007, the Defendant contributed KRW 14797,000 in total 18 times in the same manner as in the annexed crime list, and Nonindicted 2 asked the Defendant to keep the money of KRW 4 at the Defendant’s home on a lock-up basis on January 25, 2007, and collected KRW 150,200,000 from January 25, 2007.

Around January 28, 2007, the Defendant found Nonindicted 4 along with Nonindicted 2, and found KRW 20 million out of KRW 152 million, which he left to the said Nonindicted 4, and paid to Nonindicted 5, who was in charge of attorney fee of the said trial through Nonindicted 2, and paid KRW 50 million to Nonindicted 5, who was in charge of the payment of attorney fee of the said trial around January 30, 2007, from among the money that he left to Nonindicted 4 through Nonindicted 2, around January 30, 2007, and paid KRW 50 million to Nonindicted 5, and around February 5, 2007, the remainder of KRW 82 million that he left to Nonindicted 4 through Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 2, and used the money that was collected after January 25, 2007, as additional attorney fee.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 2, the Defendant received political funds from the Defendant’s branch or clan members, etc. in a way that does not prescribe the Political Funds Act, in exchange for the Defendant’s attorney fees in violation of the Public Official Election Act.

2. Defendant 2, 4, 3, and 5

피고인 2는 2007. 1. 하순경 (주소 2 생략)에 있는 ‘공소외 6 주식회사’ 사무실에서 전기공사업자 피고인 3, 광고업자 피고인 4, 건설업자 피고인 5에게 ‘☆시장님(피고인 1)이 재판이 계속되니까 힘이 든다, 변호사 비용이라도 좀 도와주자, 내가 1,000만원을 낼 테니 너희들도 1,000만원씩을 내자’라고 제의하였고, 피고인 4, 3, 5는 이를 승낙하였다.

Accordingly, around January 25, 2007, Defendant 4, 3, and 5 delivered KRW 10 million to Defendant 2 at the office of the above non-indicted 6 corporation. Defendant 2 was found in the house of the defendant 1 located on the same day ( Address 1 omitted) and delivered KRW 10 million to the above non-indicted 2 in total, and around January 25, 2007, the non-indicted 2 asked the defendant's house to keep the above KRW 152 million, including KRW 40,000,000,000 to Non-indicted 4 as the defendant's house and the above KRW 40,000,000 to Non-indicted 4.

Since then, Defendant 1 found Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 4 on January 28, 2007, and found KRW 20 million out of KRW 152 million, which he left to Nonindicted 4, and paid through Nonindicted 2 through Nonindicted 2, even though he used the total amount of money received as stated in paragraph 1, as attorney fees.

As a result, the Defendants provided 10 million won for each of the attorneys' fees to Defendant 1 of the ○○ market and contributed political funds in a way that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act.

3. Defendant 6

At around February 5, 2007, the Defendant delivered 3 million won in the house of Defendant 1 and 2.1 million won in the above non-indicted 2 delivered from the Defendant’s money to the above non-indicted 7, 8, and 9 in the name of the attorney-at-law of Defendant 1 at the office of Defendant 1, who is located ( Address 1 omitted), and the non-indicted 2 provided Defendant 1 with the attorney-at

As a result, the defendant provided 3 million won to the defendant 1 as the attorney's fees and donated them in a way that is not set forth in the Political Funds Act.

4. Defendants 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

피고인들은 ○○시에 근무하는 ☆씨 성을 가진 계장으로 피고인 1이 제1항과 같이 당선무효형에 해당하는 벌금 250만원을 선고받게 되자, 피고인 1을 도와주겠다고 생각하였다.

The Defendants provided KRW 3 million to Nonindicted 10, respectively, in the △△△ restaurant operated by Nonindicted 10 on January 1, 2007, on the pretext of the attorney fees of Defendant 1 in the ○○ market, and provided KRW 36.8 million, including each three million of the Defendants, to the said Nonindicted 2, and provided the said money to Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 in charge of funds on January 2007 via Nonindicted 2 and 4, as set forth in paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the Defendants provided 3 million won for each of the attorneys' fees to Defendant 1 of the ○○ market and donated them in such a way as not stipulated in the Political Funds Act.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 11, 12, 4 and 2

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 4, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 3, 10, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 (including the part concerning Nonindicted 29’s statement in the first prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 15 and the part concerning Nonindicted 30’s statement in the prosecutor’s statement against Nonindicted 27)

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 2, 23, 28, 19, 17, 22, 15, 10, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35

1. The statement of Nonindicted 7

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (in case of a person who has contributed attorney's fees, ten persons shall be attached), investigation report (in case of a person who has contributed to the attorney's fees, attached with materials related to a clan 10 million won), investigation report (in case of the relative of the defendant 1), investigation report (in case of the relative of the defendant 1), investigation report (in case of the non-indicted 26 statement at the meeting of the non-indicted 1 clans and related materials such as the source of funds raised at attorney's fees), investigation report (in case of a copy

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

Defendant 1: The main sentence of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.

The remaining Defendants except Defendant 1: The main sentence of Article 45(1) of the Political Funds Act (electiveity of a fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

The remaining Defendants except Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Article 45(3) of the Political Funds Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

The remaining Defendants except Defendant 1: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The defendants and their defense counsel (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") asserts that the defendants' receipt of money in the name of attorney-at-law's fee for defendant 1 as stated in the facts charged above does not constitute political funds if they were not provided for "political activities" in the purport of the Political Fund Act. As defendant 1 lost in criminal proceedings in the first instance trial related to the Public Official Election Act, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes money provided for political activities with money voluntarily collected by the above defendant's branch and clan members as the expense for trial, and therefore, the defendants' above receipt of money does not constitute a crime of receiving political funds as provided for in the Political Fund Act.

Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Political Funds Act provides that “The term “political funds” means political parties, persons elected by election by a political party, candidates for public office, persons intending to become candidates for public office, persons who intend to become public officials, supporters’ associations, executives of political parties or salaried clerical staff, and expenses incurred in their political activities” for the purpose of political activities, including party membership fees, support payments, deposits, subsidies, and incidental revenues prescribed by the party constitution and regulations, and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “when political funds are raised through a supporters’ association, the procedures, methods, and limits, etc. of raising political funds through a supporters’ association shall be prescribed in Articles 6 through 21 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 9975 of Jan. 25, 2010). However, since the basic local government head is not only a designation authority of the National Assembly members, a Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or a Do Governor, the head of the basic local government government, such as Defendant 1, is also prohibited from performing political funds as an act of the nature of the National Assembly.

Therefore, in a case where the head of the basic local government who is elected through an election for public office receives political funds from any person, he/she itself constitutes a crime of receiving and receiving political funds as provided by the Political Funds Act, and constitutes a crime of receiving and receiving political funds as provided by the Political Funds Act. However, it cannot be deemed that all money, securities, and other things that the head of the basic local government gives and receives is a political fund as provided by Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Political Funds Act, and it is natural in light of the nature, name, purpose of the provision, etc. of the fund (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8141, Dec. 13, 2007, etc.).

이 사건에서 피고인들의 주장 자체에 의하더라도 피고인들이 위 공소사실 기재와 피고인 1을 위한 변호사 선임비용을 위하여 금원을 수수한 사실은 인정되므로, 과연 변호사 선임을 위하여 수수된 금원이 정치활동을 위하여 수수된 금원에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 나아가 보건대, ① 공직선거법(2010. 1. 25. 법률 제9968호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제264조 는 ‘당선인이 당해 선거에 있어 이 법에 규정된 죄와 정치자금법 제49조 (선거비용관련 위반행위에 관한 벌칙)의 죄를 범함으로 인하여 징역 또는 100만원이상의 벌금형의 선고를 받은 때에는 그 당선은 무효로 한다’고 규정하고 있는바, 피고인 1은 2007. 1. 16. 대구지방법원 상주지원에서 공직선거법위반죄로 벌금 250만원을 선고받아 당선이 무효로 될 위기에 처해 있었던 점, ② 형사재판에 있어 변호인을 선임하는 것은 당해 피고인이 소송의 주체로서 자신을 방어함에 있어 검사와 대등한 법률적 지식과 자격을 갖춘 법률전문가로부터 충분한 조력을 받기 위한 형사절차법적 권리를 실현하는 의미를 갖는다고 할 것이나, 피고인 1과 같이 공직에 당선되어 공직선거법위반죄로 재판받는 자에게 있어 변호사 선임은 단순히 이러한 형사절차법적 의미를 넘어서 소추대상이 된 선거운동 등 행위의 적법성을 적극적으로 변론(주장·입증)함으로써 법원으로부터 무죄를 선고받거나 유죄가 인정되더라도 100만원 미만의 벌금형을 선고받아 그 직을 유지하기 위한 목적이 더욱 큰 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 즉, 일반 형사사건과는 달리 공직선거법위반으로 인한 형사사건은 공직선거시에 행해졌던 위법사실을 그 심판대상으로 하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 100만원 이상의 벌금형을 선고받을 경우 형벌과 연계하여 당해 공직선거에서의 당선을 무효로 하고 있으므로 당해 피고인은 사적 개인으로서 (유죄가 확정될 경우) 단순히 형벌권의 행사만을 감내하기만 하면 되는 형사소추의 대상에 머무는 것이 아니라, 공직선거에서 당선된 사람으로서 (100만원 이상의 벌금형 유죄 확정시) 형벌의 부수적 효과로서 그 직이 당연히 박탈될 것까지 감안하여 기소된 것이고, 따라서 당해 피고인은 이러한 검사의 기소에 대항하여 자신이 적법한 방식으로 선거운동을 수행하고 적법한 한도와 절차에 따라 선거비용을 사용하였음을 방어하고 주장할 필요가 있는 점(이러한 방어에 실패하여, 당해 피고인이 공직선거에서 위법행위를 저질렀음이 인정되어 징역형 내지 100만원 이상의 벌금형을 선고받게 되는 경우 당해 선거에서의 당선을 무효로 하는 것은 공직선거시 후보자들에게 법에 정한 방식과 절차에 따라 선거운동을 수행하고 선거비용을 지출을 할 것을 요구하는 공직선거법의 자연스러운 귀결이라고 하겠다), ④ ‘공직선거에의 적법한 참여 요구(사전전 통제)’와 ‘그 위반시 당선무효(사후적 통제)’를 연계하여 규정한 공직선거법의 유기적이고 엄격한 입법태도를 고려해 볼 때, 공직선거법위반죄로 인한 형사재판에서 공직선거에서 당선된 자가 선거운동 등의 적법성에 관하여 적극 방어하며 무죄를 주장하거나 (벌금 100만원 미만의) 선처를 호소하는 것은 선거운동 등의 정치활동을 사법적으로 재단(재단)함을 목적으로 하는 형사절차에 형사피고인으로서 단순히 참여하는 것을 넘어, 선거운동 등의 정치활동이 공직선거법에 정한 합법성의 테두리 내에서 이루어졌음을 적극적으로 주장·입증함으로써 그 정치활동의 의미와 적법성을 현재적으로 구제(구제)하고 획득하여 종국적으로 당선된 직(직)의 유지를 도모하는 것으로서 그 자체가 정치활동의 연장(연장)이라고 볼 것인 점, ⑤ 정치활동이 권력의 획득과 유지를 둘러싼 투쟁 및 권력을 행사하는 활동이라는 점( 대법원 2006. 12. 22. 선고 2006도1623 판결 참조)을 고려할 때, 전형적인 정치자금은 공직선거운동에 소요되는 각종의 비용, 즉, 선거비용 등이 되겠지만, 앞서 본 정치활동에 관한 정의(정의)에서 드러나듯 정치활동의 추상성, 무정형성, 포괄성이라는 특성상 이러한 전형적인 정치활동에 소모되는 비용만이 정치자금에 해당한다고는 볼 수 없고, 앞에서 살펴보았듯이 유·무죄와 형의 경중에 따라 당선무효 여부가 달려 있는 공직선거법위반죄로 인한 형사재판에 있어 피고인의 변론활동 및 이를 보조하기 위한 변호사의 선임행위에 소모된 비용 역시 공직선거를 통하여 어렵사리 획득한 권력인 공직을 유지하기 위한 활동에 소요된 비용으로서 정치자금에 해당한다고 봄이 상당한 점, ⑥ 이처럼 피고인 1이 수수한 위 공소사실 기재 금원이 정치자금에 해당하는 이상 설령 친족회나 지인들이 자발적으로 성금을 모아 금원을 전달한 것으로서 부조(부조)의 성격을 아울러 갖는다고 하더라도 여전히 정치자금법에서 수수를 금하는 정치자금에 해당함은 변함이 없을 뿐만 아니라, 기부자 및 기부를 받는 자와의 관계가 민법 제777조 에 정한 친족관계가 아닌 이상 정치자금부정수수죄를 구성함에 장애가 되지 아니하는 점( 정치자금법 제45조 제1항 단서) 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인들이 위 공소사실 기재와 같이 피고인 1을 위한 변호사 비용 명목으로 수수한 금원은 정치자금법에 정한 정치자금에 해당한다고 할 것이므로 이러한 금원을 수수한 행위는 정치자금부정수수죄를 구성한다고 볼 것이다(또한, 비록 피고인들이 이러한 정치자금에 해당한다는 인식 없이 막연하게 금원을 수수하였다고 하여도 이는 단순한 법률의 부지(불지)에 해당하여 형법 제16조 에 정한 법률의 착오에 해당하지 아니한다).

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

In order to prevent the illegality related to political funds and contribute to the sound development of democratic politics by receiving illegal political funds, the Defendants damaged the legislative purpose of the Political Funds Act. Furthermore, Defendant 1 had the record of being sentenced to fines twice due to the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, even though the amount of the political funds unlawfully contributed reaches KRW 147,970,000, there is no significant liability corresponding thereto.

However, the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1, as the branch members or clan members of Defendant 1, voluntarily raised funds to help the Defendant, Defendant 1 did not first demand political funds, and only used political funds received as attorney-at-law appointment expenses. Defendant 1, as a public official of the Ministry of Environment, has been engaged in public duties for a long period of time since the commencement of public office as a public official of the Ministry of Environment, until his re-election into the ○○ market. In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, career, background of this case, amount of illegal political funds, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined as ordered.

[Attachment]

Judges Song Jae-chan