Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Completion iron

Attorneys Yoon Man-man et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Gohap228 Decided September 13, 2006

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 and the part against Defendant 2 shall be reversed.

The punishment against the Defendants shall be set at KRW 700,000.

If the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting each one million won into one day.

Of the facts charged in this case against Defendant 1, the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the act of contribution made on December 29, 2005 is acquitted.

2. The prosecutor's appeal as to the acquittal portion against Defendant 1 among the judgment below is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

① Although there was a fact that the Defendant confirmed the intention of the Do residents prior to the decision on December 26, 2005 by the members, etc. of the Korean National Assembly member, etc. on January 27, 2006, the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged at the above conference on December 26, 2005 and 29, and on January 27, 2006, at ASEAN, there was no fact that he made a statement to the effect that he would be supported by the intra-party competition or election. In addition, even if the Defendant made a statement at the above conference as described in the facts charged, in light of the circumstances of the meeting, it is ordinary, ordinary, and social acts as well as the acts falling under the scope of the normal activities, and thus, it is not possible to be an advance election campaign. Meanwhile, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prior election campaign in violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act or in violation of the legal principles as to the evidence collected before the election campaign period.

② Where a preliminary candidate conducts an intra-party competition without being registered as a preliminary candidate, the crime of pre-party competition does not constitute a crime of restricting the method of the intra-party competition under the Public Official Election Act, apart from the fact that the crime of pre-election is established. In addition, to establish a crime of restricting the method of the intra-party competition, the crime of restricting the method of the intra-party competition should be established by granting the right to vote to the party members and those who are not the party members. On or around December 2005, Korea did not decide whether to select the candidate for the Cheongnam-do Governor or not as a strategic vacancy. Therefore, even if the Defendant complained of the Defendant and the party members in the budget, grant, and letter on December 26 and 29, 2005, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged as guilty, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

③ On December 29, 2005, the Defendant paid the meal expenses in advance by Non-Indicted 1, 100,000 won check at the time when only the members of the Seocheon-gun Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Council”) and the members of the Seocheon-do Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Council”) and the “(trade name omitted) restaurant” in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do. Nevertheless, Defendant 2, who is a driving engineer, knew of such circumstances, paid a meal expenses of KRW 357,00 to the Defendant, and the Defendant was paid a meal expenses of KRW 357,00,00 without any limit. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant provided meals to the participants of the above gathering.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentencing of the court below, which determined the punishment of the defendant as a fine of 1.5 million won, is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) On January 27, 2006, Defendant 1 told Defendant 1 to hold a doctorate club member, etc. at a coffee shop of the Youngyang Tourist Hotel, which was held on January 27, 2006, and offered a tea price of KRW 26,500,00 constitutes a contribution act by an expression of intent to offer a good interest beyond the scope of courtesy and private speech or personnel relations. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the contribution act, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the contribution act.

(2) The fact that Defendant 2 paid KRW 357,00 of meal expenses at a Seocheon (mutual omitted) restaurant is not merely a change from Defendant 1’s heart, but is made according to Defendant 2’s independent intent under the implied communication with or implied consent with Defendant 1, and was made by means of functional control over the joint doctor’s functional act. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was not guilty of Defendant 2, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the contribution act.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Violation of the method of prior election campaign and intraparty election campaign

① On December 29, 2005, Nonindicted Party 2, attending a restaurant meeting, recorded the contents of conversation at the time of digital tape recorder, copied the contents thereof in the compact disc and seized them to the prosecution, and the recorded contents in the disc were submitted as evidence. The lower court adopted the transcript and the attached disc as evidence of conviction in this part of the facts charged, but did not examine the evidence of the digital tape recorder used at the site and the content of the recording.

However, in electronic media, such as tapes recording the contents of conversation, there is a risk of editing or manipulating the contents by either the intent of the tape recorder or the specific technology. Therefore, in the case of the original of the recording medium or a copy of the original, the admissibility of evidence can be recognized only if it is proven that the original is a copy reproduced without any artificial manipulation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2945, Dec. 23, 2005).

In the instant case, there is no proof that the digital tape recorder’s content used to record Defendant 1’s conversation at the site was copied as it is, and thus, the content of the disc or the recorded recording is inadmissible. Moreover, even if the content of the disc is verified by the lower court, it is nothing more than confirming the content of the copy that has not been admissible, and there is no probative value. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by deeming such evidence as evidence of guilt.

② However, even if the above recording notes and the result of the verification by the lower court were excluded, the following facts are recognized only by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

Defendant 1 was a member of the 15th and 16th National Assembly, but the election of the 17th National Assembly member was not going out on March 9, 2004 due to the fact that he was moving from the Free Democratic Union to Korea. However, since July 2005 when the Defendant was staying in the United States, Defendant 1 got out of the United States and left the Republic of Korea on March 9, 2004. However, since July 2005, there was an article to the effect that the Defendant is likely to go to the Cheongnam-do Governor. The Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea on November 10, 2005, and started preparation to go out to the 4th nationwide local election of the 4th Dong-dong local government.

(ii) On December 26, 2005, the Defendant provided meals with 7-8 members of the Korea-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do , and (ii) introduced 10 members of the Korea-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do - Do - Do Do - Do - Do - Do - in the budget (trade name omitted) - Do Do - Do - Do - Do - Gu - Gu - Gu - Do - Gu - Gu - Gu - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - government - - government - government - government - government - government - government - - - government . .

The defendant 1 registered as a preliminary candidate on January 31, 2006, and on March 23, 2006, Hannam-do Governor decided that the candidate was decided by the method of citizen participation competition. Accordingly, on April 14, 2006, the intraparty competition was conducted, and the defendant was decided as a candidate for Hannam-do by taking advantage of other candidates, such as non-party 3 and non-party 4, and was elected to the Cheongnam-do governor through the nationwide local election implemented on May 31, 2006.

(3) "Act to be elected or not to be elected" means any active and planned act necessary for or in favor of a specific candidate for the election or defeat, which can objectively be recognized as an intention to promote the election or defeat. Specifically, in order to determine whether an act constitutes an election campaign, it is necessary to observe and determine not only the cause of such act, but also the time, place, method, object, mode, etc. of such act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6604, Dec. 23, 2004). Meanwhile, an act in preparation for a candidate and an election campaign is not considered as an election campaign, but also an act to obtain a vote for the purpose of election of a specific candidate, if it is not merely an internal and procedural preparation for a future election campaign, but also an act to obtain a vote for the purpose of election of a specific candidate, it constitutes an election campaign. In addition, an ordinary activity of a political party to disseminate such a policy, expand its organization, or develop policies.

In addition, under Article 57-3 of the Public Official Election Act, candidates themselves cannot conduct the competition campaign in a way other than that permitted to the preliminary candidate pursuant to Article 60-3. The purpose of restricting the means of the intra-party competition campaign is to prevent the excessive competition campaign and to prevent abuse of the intra-party competition campaign as a legitimate means of evading the regulations on the prohibition of pre-election, etc. Therefore, even if the decision of the intra-party competition is not finalized or the registration of the preliminary candidate is not made, if the persons who intend to participate in the intra-party competition conduct the competition campaign beyond the scope permitted by the Public Official Election Act in preparation for the intra-party competition, it constitutes a violation of restrictions on the methods of the intra-party competition campaign.

④ 이 사건에서 보면, 위와 같이 적법한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 사정, 즉 ㉠ 피고인 1이 2005. 11. 10.경 귀국한 무렵을 전후하여 충청남도지사 후보예정자로 언론에서 거론되고 있었는데 피고인도 출마 의사를 부정하지 않고 있었고, ㉡ 이 사건 당시 피고인 1 등 당내경선에 참여할 것으로 알려져 있던 예상 후보자들 사이의 지지율에 큰 차이가 없었고 경쟁 후보자 중 오랫동안 선거 준비를 해 온 사람도 있어 당내경선의 방법으로 후보자를 선출할 가능성이 컸으며, ㉢ 피고인이 위와 같이 선거구 안의 주요 지역을 돌아다니면서 만났던 사람들은 모두 한나라당 당원으로서 각 지역의 선거에서 나름대로 영향력을 발휘할 수 있는 사람들이었고, 그 중 일부는 한나라당 당내경선에서 실제로 투표권을 행사한 사람들이었는데, 피고인과는 대부분 초면이었으며, ㉣ 피고인이 위와 같이 지지를 호소한 시기가 예비후보자등록을 불과 한 달 남짓 앞 둔 시점이었고, ㉤ 피고인이 참석한 모임이 우연히 마련된 자리가 아니라 사전에 계획되어 준비된 자리였던 점 등을 모두 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 위와 같이 4차례에 걸쳐 한나라당 당원 등에게 선거에서의 지지를 호소한 행위는, 선거에서의 당선을 도모한다는 목적 의사가 객관적으로 인정될 수 있는 능동적·계획적인 행위로 선거운동에 해당함이 분명하고, 선거운동 준비행위나 통상적인 정당 활동에 불과하다거나 일상적·사교적·의례적인 행위에 불과하다고 볼 수 없다. 또 그 중 3차례에 걸쳐 당내경선에서의 지지를 호소한 행위는, 피고인이 당내경선에 대비하여 공직선거법 제57조의3 제1항 이 허용하는 방법을 벗어나 경선운동을 한 것으로 공직선거법이 허용하는 당내경선운동의 범위를 넘어선 것으로 인정된다.

(5) If so, it is erroneous for the court below to adopt the recording in writing, etc. without admissibility as evidence and consider it as evidence of guilt. However, the conclusion that the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged was just and did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, Defendant

(2) A contribution act made on December 29, 2005

① Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around 12:00 on December 29, 2005, upon Nonindicted 5’s request from Nonindicted 6, who was an assistant to the time of a member of the National Assembly of Korea, Defendant 1, a member of the Han-gu Council, called “(title omitted) restaurant” in the territory of Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do. Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to attend the said place and publicize his academic background and career and to the effect that he supports himself in the competition and election. Defendant 2 separately provided meals to Nonindicted 7, who is a restaurant employee, and provided meals to Han-gu, a member of the elector, who is an assistant to the time of a member of the National Assembly of Korea. Accordingly, Defendant 1 contributed by a person who wishes to be a candidate, and Defendant 2 performed the act of donation to Defendant 1 on May 31, 2006.

② Judgment of the court below

The lower court fully recognized this part of the facts charged, but determined that the actual subject of the contribution act is Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 is only a replacement of Defendant 1’s heart.

(3) Details of contributions.

The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of having provided meals by paying the total meal cost, but it is difficult to accept this part of the lower court’s judgment.

In other words, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 8, the general secretary of the (mutual omitted) restaurant meeting, are consistent from the investigation agency to the appellate court, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 7, who was unaware of this fact, stated that he was paid the meal cost in cash from Defendant 2. At the meeting of the restaurant where Defendant 1 was present, Nonindicted 3, who was in competition with the Defendant and the intraparty 3, was present. In granting, there was a discussion that Nonindicted 1, the general secretary of the (mutual omitted) restaurant meeting, took place from the investigation agency to the appellate court, Nonindicted 8, the head of the (mutual omitted) restaurant, and that Nonindicted 1, who was aware of this fact, took advantage of the fact that he was paid the meal cost in cash. However, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 3, at the time of Defendant 1’s intraparty competition meeting, took place in the meeting where Nonindicted 1, 3, and Defendant 2, who was present at the meeting where Nonindicted 1, 3, was present at the meeting, and that he was present at the meeting.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, it is recognized that the meal cost at the (mutual omitted) restaurant was already paid by Nonindicted Party 1 at the general meeting of the once prior to Defendant 2’s calculation. The lower court determined that: (a) Nonindicted Party 1 had already received the meal cost in advance on a check by finding Nonindicted Party 8; (b) it is difficult to understand that Nonindicted Party 7 had received the meal cost in advance; (c) Nonindicted Party 1 had been presented to the financial institution on the following day; and (d) it is natural that the check was presented to Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 8, and Nonindicted Party 5’s statement, etc. on December 29, 2005; (b) on the grounds that the one hand-time meeting of Nonindicted Party 1, etc., including Defendant 1, etc., together with an annual meeting, did not appear to have been a personnel meeting with the persons who will be present at the fourth local election for the local government, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the said meal amount was paid in advance prior to the date of the check payment.

Therefore, even if Defendant 2 paid the meal cost in the absence of a prior payment obligation, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants conspired to provide meals and provided them. However, it is clear that Defendant 2 expressed an intent to provide meals by paying the meal cost, which constitutes a violation of Article 113 of the Public Official Election Act, as a contribution act by the expression of intent to provide benefits. However, the fact that it is a contribution act by the expression of intent to provide benefits is included in the facts charged as a contribution act by the provision of meals. In this case, even if the facts charged are recognized as a contribution act by the expression of intent to provide benefits without the amendment procedure, it is not likely that the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense would be practically disadvantaged. Accordingly, even though Defendant 1’s assertion is correct, the issue of whether the crime of violation of the prohibition of donation by the expression of intent to provide benefits is established remains.

(4) Whether Defendant 1 is the subject of contribution acts

Since the investigation agency, Defendant 2 consistently stated that Defendant 1 ordered two-person meal services for a group of members of the investigation agency, and then asked Nonindicted 7 to pay three-person meal expenses to Defendant 1’s meal expenses. At that time, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 2 paid the total meal expenses in cash, first of all, on the wind that Defendant 1 promoted, and later, Defendant 1 paid the total meal expenses. Meanwhile, Nonindicted 7 stated that Defendant 2 received 357,000 won from Defendant 2, on the other hand, depending on whether Defendant 2 calculated the total meal expenses when he would make a calculation after a group of meals. In addition, since the investigation agency, Defendant 1 did not consistently instruct Defendant 2 to pay the meal expenses, and did not know the fact that he paid the meal expenses.

The lower court determined that Defendant 1 made a contribution by means of providing food at his own expense and expense, in consideration of Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 2 had continued to carry out an election campaign, as Defendant 1’s driver, and it appears that Defendant 1 had been aware of the character of Defendant 1 or the legal meaning of the contribution act, as long as Defendant 1 had worked for a long time as Defendant 1’s driver, Defendant 1 did not have any reason to unilaterally pay the meal cost against Defendant 1’s will, in light of Nonindicted 7’s statement, etc., there is no credibility in Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 1 calculated the total food cost on the wind coming from the wind.

However, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, it is inevitable to determine the defendant as the benefit of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1716, May 26, 2006).

이 사건에서 보면, 피고인 1이 피고인 2로 하여금 식사대금을 계산하도록 지시하였다거나 식사를 제공하기로 공모하였다고 인정할 수 있는 직접증거는 전혀 없다. 오히려 피고인 1은 2차례에 걸쳐 국회의원선거에 출마하여 당선된 경험이 있는데 공직선거법을 위반하여 적발된 전력이 없으며, 이 사건 당시에는 자유민주연합에서 한나라당으로 당적을 옮긴지 오래 되지 않은 상황이었고 또 1년 이상 미국에서 머물다가 귀국한지 두 달도 안 된 상태였을 뿐만 아니라, 서천 (상호 생략)식당 모임에 참석한 한서회 회원들 대부분은 당내경선 경쟁자인 공소외 3을 지지하는 사람들로서 피고인과 초면이었으므로, 공직선거법 위반으로 적발될 위험을 무릅쓰고 기부행위를 하기로 피고인 2와 공모하거나 그에게 기부행위를 지시하였다고 보기 어려우며, 실제로 공소외 3의 지지자들이 피고인 1의 행적을 유심히 지켜보았음에도 불구하고 이 건 이외에는 다른 모임에서 식사대금을 내는 등의 기부행위를 한 사실이 전혀 발견되지 않은 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때, 피고인 1이 피고인 2와 공모하여 기부행위를 하였다거나 기부행위를 하도록 지시하였다고 보기는 어렵다. 원심이 지적한 것처럼 피고인 2의 진술에 일부 의심스러운 부분이 있는 것은 사실이지만, 그의 진술과 같이 혼자서 2인분의 식사를 한 부담 때문에 자신과 피고인 1이 먹은 식사대금만 결제하려다가 엉겁결에 전체 식사대금을 계산하였을 가능성도 완전히 배제할 수는 없다.

Therefore, the court below found Defendant 2 not guilty on the ground that Defendant 2’s statement is not reliable, and found guilty on Defendant 1’s violation of this part of the prohibition of contribution act without any other objective evidence. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence. Accordingly, this part of Defendant 1’s assertion is correct.

B. Regarding the prosecutor's assertion

(1) The act of making contributions by Defendant 2

As seen above, even if Defendant 2’s relation of work as a driver of Defendant 1’s driver, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant 2 had no intent to make a contribution on behalf of Defendant 1 when he pays the meal cost. Although Defendant 2 acknowledged this part of the facts charged, considering the special relationship with Defendant 1 or the credibility of his statement, Defendant 2 is merely a change in Defendant 1’s heart and the actual subject of the said contribution is Defendant 1, the lower court determined that Defendant 2 was Defendant 1, and that the actual subject of the said contribution was Defendant 1, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is correct.

(2) A contribution act made on January 27, 2006

① Summary of this part of the facts charged

On January 27, 2006, Defendant 1 complained of support from three persons, such as Nonindicted 9, etc. at the Hanyang Tourist hotel coffee shop located in Asan-si, Asan-si on January 27, 2006, and Nonindicted 9 declared that he would pay the tea rate of 26,500 won, and the person who wishes to become a candidate by communicating it, expressed his intention of offering profits to those in the constituency.

(2) Judgment

Of the contribution acts under Article 112(1) of the Public Official Election Act, the expression of intent to provide money and other valuables or benefits should reach the level of external and objective appearance as it contains a genuine will to the extent that it is difficult to withdraw from social norms. Even if a conversation related to the provision of money and other valuables or benefits exists, if it is merely a formal or private personnel book expression, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intent to provide money and other valuables or benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4987, Apr. 27, 2006).

In this case, Defendant 1 asserted that, even if Defendant 1 expressed his intent to conduct a tea tea value at a coffee shop, he did not actually have any intention to contact the tea. Defendant 1 stated to the effect that, in order to calculate the tea tea value, Nonindicted 9, who participated in the above gathering, Defendant 1 stated that he did not have any intent to actually get off the tea. Thus, in light of the general practices of our society where multiple persons provide meals, Defendant 1 said that he said that he would offer a tea tea value in the tea shop, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 1 did not have made a contribution by expressing his genuine intent to accept the tea with the attending the above gathering beyond the mere tea value or the Defendant, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this part of this part of this case’s argument is acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal concerning the acquittal portion against Defendant 1 among the judgment below is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Of the judgment below, the defendant's appeal against Defendant 1 is partially reasonable, and the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 2 is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below on this part is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 2 is reversed.

○ Defendant 1

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to Defendant 2, a driver, who wishes to be a candidate by providing meals to the participants by means of having Defendant 2, a driver, calculate the meal amount of KRW 357,00,00 among the facts constituting an offense in the reasoning of the judgment below, on the ground that: (a) except that the person actually contributes to an election campaign; and (b) the person who actually contributes to an election campaign is as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, on the ground that Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied.

○ Defendant 2

At around 12:00 on December 29, 2005, upon Nonindicted 5’s request from Nonindicted 6, who was an assistant to the time of the member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, Defendant 1, a member of the Han-gu Council, called “(trade name omitted)” in the name of “(title omitted)” located in the Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do military unit. Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 to the effect that he attended the said place and publicize his academic background and career, and request the support of himself in the competition and election. Defendant 2 provided a separate meal to Nonindicted 7, a restaurant employee, in cash, paid KRW 357,00 for the total meal amount of KRW 357,00,00, and provided meals to the members of the Han-gu National Assembly, a member of the elector, and made a contribution to Defendant 1 by having the Do governor elected on May 31, 2006.

○ Defendant 1

In addition to the deletion of “1. The recording recorded by Nonindicted 10” and “1. The result of verification of recording tapes of this court,” the gist of the evidence of the lower judgment is the same as the recording of the lower judgment. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

○ Defendant 2

1. Entry of Defendant 2 in part of the first trial record by the lower court;

1. The statement of the witness Nonindicted 7 in the fourth trial record by the lower court

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Articles 255(2)3, 57-3(1) (the violation of the method of campaign for the intra-party competition) and 254(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the violation of the method of campaign for the intra-party competition)

Defendant 2: Article 257(1)1, Article 115 of the Public Official Election Act

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the method of each competition campaign and the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the election campaign period: Punishment on the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the violation of the heavy method of each competition campaign)

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Determination of fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Public Official Election Act due to violation of the Act on the Election Campaign Method of December 29, 2005, with the largest penalty)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part of the charge that Defendant 1 provided 20 members of the Seocho-do (mutual omitted) restaurant on December 29, 2005 with meals of the amounting to 357,00 won to 357,00 won to 357,00 won and provided by Defendant 1 in collusion with Defendant 2 constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts as seen earlier, and thus, it is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

○ Defendant 1

Defendant should be held liable for responding to the violation of the Public Official Election Act by violating the restriction on the method of campaign in the intraparty competition and by carrying out a prior election campaign. However, the Defendant, while working as a member of the 15th National Assembly and 16th National Assembly, moved to the 17th National Assembly member election without going through the 17th National Assembly election, and returned home while studying in the United States, and confirmed local public opinion and decided whether to go out the election. Furthermore, the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of determining whether to go out the election. Furthermore, the Defendant’s interest was based on the interest of the Defendant and returned home to the United States. On the other hand, the number of persons who were considered to be the competitors of the intraparty competition had prepared for an election for a long time and had a relatively low organizational foundation in the area of the intraparty competition, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of preparing for the election was a large number of persons who committed the instant election crimes and did not have any significant influence on the Defendant’s organization and organization. In light of this case’s election campaign.

Furthermore, the Defendant has contributed to a long-standing public service life and the activities of members of the National Assembly, and has not been punished before, and has not been able to take full account of the circumstances, such as the course, means and methods of violations of the Public Official Election Act, and the character, conduct and experience of the Defendant, etc. In full view of these circumstances, the sentence of punishment to the extent that the election of the Defendant would be invalidated is only considered to be imposed.

○ Defendant 2

In full view of the fact that the defendant was the first offender and his mistake is divided, and other various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and method of committing the crime, the defendant shall also be punished to the extent that the right to vote and to be elected is not restricted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kang Il-won (Presiding Judge)