206Gohap583 A. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

206Gohap622 (Consolidation)

1. A (6*********1*********) and ○○ Council members.

2. B (5*********1********) and building business (former ○○)

3. C.C. (6*********1*******) and ○○ Council members.

nan

nan

November 1, 2006

1. The defendant A and B shall be punished by a fine of 300,000,00 won for each of the crimes of 2-C(1) of the holding that C and C shall be punished by a fine of 200,000,000 won for each of the crimes of 2-C(2) of the holding.

2. If the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the above 50,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

3. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, each of the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to delivery of KRW 30,000 each of the 30,000 won on November 5, 2004 and November 4, 2005, Defendant C, who violated the Public Official Election Act of October 15, 2004 among the facts charged against Defendant C, is acquitted.

Criminal facts

1. Status of the Defendants

가. 피고인 甲은 2006. 5. 31. 자로 실시된 제4회 전국동시지방선거에서 ○○에 ○○의원 후보로 출마하여 당선된 사람으로서, 2004. 3. 경 ○○당 지구당을 해체하면서 그 소속 청년위원회를 중심으로 2004. 6. 경 결성한 ★★회의 위원장직을 그 때부터 2006. 6. 경까지 맡았다 .

B. Defendant B is a person who was sent to O as a candidate for the members of the O in the fourth national local election.

C. C. C. C. was elected at the fourth nationwide local election with ○○○○’s candidate. A person who was responsible for the progress of various events and the execution of the budget from June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2006, with ○○ Dong Residential Self-Governing Committee’s Chairperson assigned from June 1, 2004.

2. A person who wishes to be a candidate or candidate for the Defendants’ contribution act shall not make a contribution act to a person or institution, institution, organization - a person or institution having relations with the electorate even if there are facilities outside the constituency concerned, or an organization - an organization - a facility, respectively, as follows.

가. 피고인 甲 ( 1 ) 2004. 4. 25. 경 ○○에서, 지역 선거구민을 중심으로 구성된 ' 봉사대 ’ 개최 일일 찻집행사에 참석하여 찬조금 명목으로 5만 원을 교부하였다 . ( 2 ) 2004. 11. 5. 경 ○○에서, 대부분 선거구민으로 구성된 ★★ 소속 회원과 이당 소속 여성위원회의 후신인 ' △△회 ' 회원 등 합계 약 30명의 야유회에서 앞서 ★★ 총무인 A에게 야유회 찬조금 명목으로 30만 원을 교부하였다 . ( 3 ) 2005. 4. 17. 경 ○○에서, 봉사대 개최 일일찻집행사에 참석하여 찬조금 명목으로 5만 원을 교부하였다 .

( 4 ) 2005. 11. 4. 경 ○○에서, 위 ★★와 △△회 회원 합계 약 40명의 야유회에 앞서 A에게 야유회 찬조금 명목으로 20만 원을 교부하였다 .

B. Defendant B (1) around April 25, 2004, at around 00, around 2004, ○○, attended a teahouse executor, and delivered KRW 50,000,00 for the purpose of supporting money.

( 2 ) 2005. 2. 27. 경 ○○에서, 봉사회 개최 윷놀이대회에 참석하여 찬조금 명목으로 10만 원을 교부하였다 .

(3) On April 17, 2005, around 000, around around 17, 2005, 50, 00 won was present at the daily tea house events held by the volunteer team and delivered them for the purpose of supporting.

C. C. C. (1) around April 17, 2005, at around 00, around 2005, the Defendant attended the daily tea executor holding the service team, and delivered KRW 50,000 as a sponsor.

(2) In relation to 'the promotion of the ○○ Dong Residents' Self-Governing Committee' in 2005, 2005.

5. On May 21, 2005, after receiving KRW 8,000,00 as a commission fee for private events from ○○○○○ for the purpose of providing assistance to private events, 1,043,80,000,000, the remainder of the commission fee for the 200,000,000 won was returned to ○○○ to ○○ for the purpose of providing assistance to private events, and embezzled by arbitrarily consuming the remainder of KRW 843,80,00,00.

Summary of Evidence

Section 2-A (1) and (3) of the ruling

1. Part of the statement made by Defendant A in this Court; 1. Part of the statement made by the witness A in this Court - Of the investigation records of the case No. 2006 type 43093

1. Statement made to A (two times) prepared by the assistant judicial police officer;

1. Entry of the part of the statement made by the assistant judicial police officer twice in person A;

1. Entry of part of the protocol of interrogation of the accused A prepared by the assistant judicial police officer in the protocol;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against Defendant A;

1. The protocol of statement A prepared by the prosecutor is partially recorded; and

Section 2-A(2), (4), and (2-B) of the ruling

1. The statement made by the defendant A and B at each court of law 1. The statement made by the witness A at each court of law - the investigation records of the case No. 2006 type 43093

1. Statement written by the assistant judicial police officer on the ○○○, etc.;

1. Statement (A);

1. Entry of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by Defendant B, who is prepared by the assistant judicial police officer;

1. Entry of each protocol of examination of suspect as to Defendant B and A (two times) prepared by the prosecutor;

1. Statement A prepared by a public prosecutor;

- Of the investigation records of the case No. 2006 type 52652

1. Statement of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor twice against the defendant who is the defendant; and

Section 2-3 of the Judgment

1. Part of the statements made by Defendant C at this Court 1. Witness A and B at each court - Of the investigation records of the case No. 2006 type 43093, the statements made by Defendant C and B at each court

1. Statement made twice to A prepared by an assistant judicial police officer;

1. Entry of the written statement in part of the defendant who is written by the assistant judicial police officer; and

1. Some statements of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the assistant judicial police officer for the accused; and

1. Statement A prepared by a public prosecutor;

- Of the investigation records of the case No. 2006 type 52652

1. Statement of statement prepared by the assistant judicial police officer B (three times) in part;

1. Some statements of each protocol of examination of suspect about the defendant prepared by the assistant judicial police officer;

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor about the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor; and

1. Entry of the written statement prepared by the prosecutor in B; and

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A and B: Each of the former Public Official Election and Prevention of Unlawful Election Act (amended by Act No. 7681 of Aug. 4, 2005) Articles 257(1)1 and 113(1) (Article 113(1) of the Public Official Election Act shall apply to contributions made by Defendant A on Nov. 4, 2005

B. Defendant C.

- The point of contribution: Articles 257(1)1 and 113(1) of the former Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election (amended by Act No. 7681 of August 4, 2005)

- The point of occupational embezzlement: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each fine;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (one of the most severe offenders is concurrent offenders with the punishment prescribed in the Public Official Election Act due to a contribution act on November 5, 2004);

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 38(1)2) (Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides for the crime of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Public Official Election Act due to contribution act made on February 27, 200

1. Separation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant C : Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act shall be tried separately from the crime of occupational embezzlement and sentenced separately)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Judgment on the defense counsel's assertion in Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Code

1. Defense counsel of the defendant A;

(a) A summary of his/her claim regarding the act of offering assistance in daily tea houses (1)

Defendant A’s payment of supporting money, such as (1) and (3) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of Defendant A, is a fact that the payment of supporting money was made by participating in a daily tea executor held on a yearly basis, and its illegality is dismissed as it does not violate the social rules.

(2) The judgment of the court below (A) where the act of contribution made by a candidate, etc. does not constitute a formal or official act as provided by Article 112(2) of the Public Official Election Act, but it can be deemed that it is within the scope of the social order which has been historically created as a kind of customary or official act, and there may be cases where illegality is removed because it does not violate the social rules, but it should be careful in recognizing illegality for such reason (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do100, Feb. 13, 2004, etc.). (b) However, since the defendant A was an incumbent member at the time of a tea tea operator, regardless of whether he was participating in the tea tea, it is within the constituency of the defendant A regardless of whether he was a member of the tea tea, and it is within the scope of the ordinary social order of the defendant A, which does not constitute a "act of donation in the form of social order" of the second 50,000 won.

[ 피고인 甲은 수사기관에서 자신이 1만 원을 냈다고 주장하였고, 이 법정에서는 자신이 제공한 돈의 정확한 액수를 모른다는 취지로 주장하고 있으나, A의 검찰 진술에 따르면, A이 작성한 봉사회의 일일찻집찬조금 내역서에 피고인 甲의 이름을 뜻하는 ' △ ' 또는 ' ▲ ' 자를 표기하는 방식으로 기재하여 피고인 甲의 이름을 나타내었고 그 옆에 5만 원의 금액이 명기되어 있는데, 또다른 찬조금 제공자인 피고인 乙, 丙의 찬조금에 관한 위 내역서의 기재가 피고인 乙, 丙의 진술과 일치하는 점 등에 비추어 보면 위 내역서는 신빙성이 있고, 따라서 피고인 甲이 찬조금으로 각 5만 원을 낸 사실을 인정할 수 있다. ] ( 다 ) 따라서 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다 .

B. A summary of the claim regarding the act of offering grants (1)

피고인 甲이 판시 범죄사실 2의 가 ( 2 ), ( 4 ) 항 기재 각 야유회 당시 ★★ 총무인 A에게 30만 원 및 20만 원을 각 교부한 것은 피고인 甲이 ★★ 위원장으로서 특별회비를 부담한 것으로, 이는 공직선거법 제112조 제2항 제2호 마목 소정의 회비를 납부하는 행위에 해당한다. 따라서 피고인 甲의 위 각 행위는 공직선거법이 금지하는 기부행위가 아니다 .

(2) According to Article 112(2)2(e) of the Public Official Election Act, the act of paying membership fees within the previous scope is not deemed as a contribution act of the relevant organization as a member of various social, friendship groups, and social organizations, such as a alumni association, etc.

( 나 ) 그런데 피고인 甲의 진술에 의하더라도 2004. 11. 5. 자 야유회 이전에 ★★에서 야유회를 간 적이 없는 점, ★★의 위원장이나 부위원장이 야유회에서 찬조금을 내는 관례가 있는 것도 아닌 점 [ 피고인 甲의 검찰 진술 ( 2006형제43093호 사건 수사기록 351쪽 ), 피고인 丙의 검찰 진술 ( 2006형제52652호 사건 수사기록 309쪽 ) ], ★★는 2004. 3. 경 한나라당 대구 북구을 지구당 소속 청년위원회가 해체된 후 2004. 6. 경에서야 비로소 결성된 단체에 불과하고, 2005년도부터는 현역 기초의원 및 지방정치에 뜻이 있는 사람들이 회원으로 다수 가입하고 기존 회원들이 탈퇴하여 구성원의 변동이 있었던 점 [ C의 경찰 진술 ( 2006형제43093호 사건 수사기록 146쪽 ) ] 등의 사정에 비추어 보면, 판시 범죄사실 2의 가 ( 2 ), ( 4 ) 항 기재 각 야유회와 같은 행사를 가진 적이 없는 ★★의 회원으로서 피고인 甲이 종전의 범위 안에서 회비를 납부하는 것은 상정할 수 없으므로, 공직선거법 제112조 제2항 제2호 마목은 적용되지 않는다 . ( 다 ) 또한 실제로 ★★ 회원들은 찬조금에 대하여 강제성이 있는 것이 아니라 성의껏 내는 것이라고 진술하고 있고 [ D의 경찰 진술 ( 2006형제43093호 사건 수사기록 177쪽 ), E의 경찰 진술 ( 위 사건 수사기록 195쪽 ) ], 실제로 C는 ★★ 부위원장임에도 찬조금을 납부하지 않았다고 진술하는 등 ( 위 사건 수사기록 148쪽 ), 야유회 찬조금은 의무적 성격의 회비가 아니라 자발적인 성격을 띤 것으로 보여져, 이를 두고 공직선거법 제112조 제2항 제2호 마목에 정한 ‘ 회비 ’ 라고 할 수도 없다 [ 피고인 甲, 丙은 검찰조사 시, 야유회 당일 출발시점에 총무는 찬조금을 낸 사람을 거명하면서 ' 이런 분들이 이번에 십시일반 도와주셨다. ' 고 말하는 등 소개를 하고, 이에 회원들은 박수를 쳐준다고 진술하였는바 ( 2006형제43093호 사건 수사기록 351 - 352쪽, 2006형제52652호 사건 수사기록 309쪽 ), 이러한 사정에 비추어 보면 피고인 甲의 행위가 자발적 성격의 기부행위에 해당됨은 더욱 자명하다 ] .

(D) Accordingly, the defense counsel’s above assertion is not accepted.

2. The defense counsel of Defendant C.

(a) A summary of his/her claim regarding the act of offering assistance in daily tea houses (1)

Defendant C, as stated in the facts of the crime 2-C (1) of the judgment of the court below, is merely an act of making contributions by attending ○○○ Service Committee as a general secretary and delivering scams to Defendant C. Even if it is recognized that C/C made contributions, this is a case where C/C participated in the daily tea work conducted on a yearly basis and paid a small amount of scamscams, and its illegality is dismissed as it does not violate the social rules.

(2) We cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion that C, who was in charge of the general affairs of the ○○○○ Service, had the prosecutor’s office conducted an election at the time of providing the above KRW 50,00,00, in light of the fact that C, without the phrase of consenting to C, had C, entered and collected the envelope in the name of C, and that it does not present any objective data such as the books at which C, ○○ Service Association’s assistance details can be verified at the time, and that C, who had been in charge of the general affairs of the ○○○ Service Association, stated that C, without the words of consenting to C, had C, entered the envelope in the name of ○○ Service Association. In addition, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that C, who was in charge of the ○○○ Service Association, had C, had C, at the time of providing the said KRW 50,000,000 in the general affairs of the 204,000,000 in the election district of C,0.

(C) Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defense counsel.

B. In relation to embezzlement of private event assistant funds (1) summary of the argument

피고인 丙은 판시 범죄사실 2의 다 ( 2 ) 항 기재 2005년도 동민 한마음축제를 준비하는 과정에서 민간행사보조위탁금으로 마트에서 필요한 물건을 사면서 843, 800원을 할인받는 형식으로 협찬을 받았고, 위 차액은 그 후 동 주민자치위원회의 계좌에 보관하여 그 재산으로 남겨두었고 개인적으로 사용하지 않았다. 따라서 피고인 丙에게는 위 협찬액 843, 800원에 대한 불법영득의사가 없었다 . ( 2 ) 판단 ( 가 ) 피고인 丙이 마트에서 할인받는 형식으로 협찬을 받았음을 확인할 수 있는 마트 측의 객관적 자료가 전혀 제출되지 않았고 ( 당시 동 주민자치위원회 총무이었던 B은 행사가 끝나고 한참 시간이 경과된 후 이 사건 수사전에야 비로소 위 843, 800원이 마트의 협찬금이라는 것을 들었다고 진술하고 있다 ), 동 주민자치위원회의 관련 장부에 위와 같은 협찬금으로 정리한 흔적도 나타나지 않는 점을 종합하면, 피고인 丙은 마트에서 1, 456, 200원 상당의 물건을 샀거나 같은 물건에 관하여 마트로부터 할인을 받아 최종적으로 1, 456, 200원에 샀다고 봄이 상당하다 .

Therefore, if the user refuses and continues to receive the refund even after the exercise is completed, because the portion of the above non-use of the consignment (non-use) with the purpose and use specified in the affirmative effort of the user is money of the nature that should be returned to the delivery office, the intention of illegal acquisition is recognized (the circumstance that the above amount is not intended to be used for his own personal purpose, but rather is left for the Dong Residential Self-Governing Committee is only the reason for sentencing).

(B) Accordingly, the defense counsel’s above assertion shall not be accepted.

Parts of innocence

1. A part of the defendant

A. Summary of the facts charged

후보자 또는 후보자가 되고자 하는 자는 당해 선거구 안에 있는 자나 기관 · 단체 - 시설 또는 당해 선거구의 밖에 있더라도 그 선거구민과 연고가 있는 자나 기관 - 단체 - 시설에 기부행위를 할 수 없음에도 불구하고, 피고인 甲은 ① 2004. 11. 5. 경 판시 범죄사실 1의 가항 기재와 같이 ★★ 및 △△회 회원 약 30명이 야유회 가는 도중 관광버스 안에서 찬조금 명목으로 3만 원을 △△회 회원 불상자에게 교부하고, ② 2005. 11. 4. 경 판시 범죄사실 1의 나항 기재와 같이 ★★ 및 △△회 회원이 야유회 가는 도중 관광버스 안에서 찬조금 명목으로 △△회 총무인 F에게 3만 원을 교부하여 , 각 기부행위를 하였다 .

B. Determination

( 1 ) 관광버스를 타고 가면서 ★★ 회원 대다수와 △△회 회원 상당수가 흥에 겨워 노래를 부르고 난 후 찬조금을 낸 점, 그 과정에서 특별히 찬조금을 낸 사람이 소개되거나 부각되지는 않은 것으로 보이는 점 [ F은, 돈을 많이 내는 사람과 적게 내는 사람을 다른 사람들이 알면 서로 미안해할까봐 속이 안보이게 하도록 검은 봉지를 들고 다니면서 자신이 직접 돈을 넣었다고 진술하였다 ( 2006형제43093호 사건 수사기록 81쪽 ) ], 제공된 찬조금액이 3만 원으로서 비교적 소액인 점 등을 종합하면, 위 각 기부행위는 ' 지극히 정상적인 생활형태의 하나로서 사회질서의 범위 안에 있는 의례적인 행위에 해당하여 사회상규에 위배되지 아니하는 행위라고 할 것이다 . ( 2 ) 그렇다면 피고인 甲이 2004. 11. 5. 자 및 2005. 11. 4. 자 각 3만 원을 기부한 행위는 형법 제20조의 정당행위에 해당하여 범죄가 되지 아니 한다고 할 것이므로 형사소송법 제325조 전단에 의하여 각 무죄를 선고한다 .

2. The part of Defendant C 1

A. Summary of the facts charged

A candidate who wishes to be a candidate may not make a contribution to a person, institution, organization, or facility in the constituency in question. However, the defendant C, from June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2006, was entrusted to the chairperson of the Dong Residential Self-Governing Committee. On October 1, 2004, the defendant requested the defendant 1,000,000,000 won in cash from G to receive a contribution payment from his 204, by requesting the defendant 1,00,000,000 won in cash from his odong-dong Office, the defendant 1,00,000 won in the name of his odong-dong Office without disclosing the name of G to the general secretary of the above committee or delivering G's support payment to his members, and the defendant 1,00,000,000 won in the name of his o-dong's o-dong's o's o.

B. Determination

(1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to view Defendant C as his own contribution act, if C, as the above facts charged, the provision of KRW 1,00,000,000, which is delivered by C, as the above facts charged, was delivered according to G’s will, and externally, it is clearly indicated that C, who is not the Defendant, is not provided.

(A) C. C., in 2004, prior to the Dong-Ma-Ma (in this year, the Dong-gu Office did not pay a subsidy for private events) and requested to provide a kind of assistance from the Dong-gu Office, and G was paid a cash of KRW 1 million to the Defendant C. After that, C., C. was given the above KRW 1 million to the general secretary B of the Dong-gu Residential Self-Governing Committee (the statement of this court and investigative agency).

(B) When delivering the above KRW 1 million to B, the defendant C, clearly stated that it is external cooperation (the facts charged, this law and investigation agency's statement in itself). (c) B, in 2004, stated that it was approved from the outside rather than the defendant's consent, that it was approved from the outside, and that it was approved from the outside, the name of the business establishment: the chairperson N. / the outside consent (100,000 won). After the festival was completed, B distributed the above detailed statement [No. 6, H police's statement (116 pages of the investigation records of this case No. 206No. 52652)]. B, in the order of 204, 100, 204, 204, 10,000 won, 1.0,000 won, 1.0,000 won, 1.0,000 won, 1.0,000 won, 3.0,000.

(2) In addition, even if there is a face that Defendant C, who has contributed to receiving external compromise, will be able to purchase a sense for members of the residents' autonomous council, even if there is such a sense, it is not the case in which Defendant C, who has been granted external compromise, is an intangible effort, but the amount he has received one million won. Thus, Defendant C, who has received external compromise, cannot provide the same as his own contribution. (3) Thus, Defendant C, 100,000 won as of October 15, 2004, cannot be deemed as his own contribution, and otherwise there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C, who has been admitted to make a contribution, is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Grounds for sentencing

1. 피고인 甲 선거운동과 관련한 금품제공행위는 공명선거의 분위기를 저해하는 것일 뿐만 아니라 민주주의에 대한 중대한 도전이므로, 피고인 甲의 죄책은 결코 가볍지 않다. 그러나 야유회 관련 기부행위는 자신이 소속된 있는 ★★ 회원들 및 그들과 친분이 있는 △△회 회원들을 그 대상으로 한 것이고, 또한 위 ★★는 당내 모임의 일종으로 볼 수 있으며, 이 사건 각 기부행위의 상당 부분이 투표일로부터 1년 이상의 시간적 간격이 있어서 선거에 미친 영향은 그다지 크다고 보기 어려운 점, 앞서 본 바와 같이 비록 의례적인 행위에는 해당하지 아니 하나, 그 찬조금액이 전체 경비의 1 / 5 내지 1 / 10 정도에 불과한 것으로 보이고 피고인 甲으로서는 위원장으로서 일반회비로 충당되지 않는 야유회 경비의 일정부분을 부담하여 할 입장에 처해 있었던 점 [ ★★ 회칙에서도 위원장의 협조의무를 규정하고 있었다 ( 제5조 제5항 ; ' 매월 회비로 본 회를 운영하면서 어려움이 있을 시에는 회장, 부회장, 회원은 본 회의 원활한 운영을 위하여 적극 협조 ( 현물, 물품 ) 할 의무를 가진다 ) ], 한편 피고인 甲은 아무런 처벌 전력이 없이 성실하게 살아왔고, 자신의 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치며 앞으로는 공직선거법을 숙지하여 법위반행위를 하지 않겠고 다짐하고 있는 점 등을 고려하여, 피고인 甲에 대하여 당선효력에 영향을 미치지 않는 벌금형을 선고하기로 한다 .

2. The sentence of a fine shall be imposed in consideration of the following: (a) there is no punishment force against Defendant B; (b) there is a depth of his mistake; and (c) Defendant B’s contribution act, which might have led to the failure of Defendant B, resulting in the failure of his contribution; and (d) the total amount of the contribution amount, etc. of the contribution money.

3. In light of the fact that Defendant C C’s contribution act takes place at a time one-year period from the fourth local election, and at that time there seems to be relatively small to have an effect on the election, and the embezzled amount was included in the account of the Dong Residential Self-Governing Committee, not personal use of it. Defendant C’s living in good faith without any punishment power, and his mistake is divided in depth, and it is possible to not violate the Public Official Election Act in the future, the effect of the election shall also be sentenced to a fine that does not affect the validity of the election.

Judges Lee Jae-won

Judge Kim Gung-hun

Judge Lee Bo-young