[1] The legal nature of the officer election rules formulated by the agricultural cooperative himself/herself (=self-governing legal rules) and whether the above officer election rules should be based on the interpretation of Article 50(1)1 and (2) and Article 172(1) and (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the crime of violation of the prohibition of offering money and goods and the crime of door-to-door visit under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is not specified to the extent that it can be determined

[1] An agricultural cooperative is a voluntary organization voluntarily formed by its members to defend their interests, and autonomy is guaranteed by the articles of association and majority of the association in its internal operation. Thus, an agricultural cooperative's self-governing law that is a kind of self-governing law and has the legal effect as well as the articles of association of the agricultural cooperative. Therefore, even if the above law does not provide for the definition of electors, the above executive election rules have the provisions about them. Thus, in interpreting Articles 50 (1) 1 and 172 (1) of the Act, the above executive election rules should also be based on the contents of the executive election rules.

[2] The case holding that the crime of violation of the prohibition of offering money and goods under Article 50 (1) 1 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the crime of door-to-door visit under Article 50 (2) of the same Act is not specified to the extent that it can be determined

[1] Articles 16 subparag. 12, 45(3), 50(1)1, and 172(1) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act / [2] Articles 50(1)1 and (2), 172(1) and (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Do2147 decided Mar. 23, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 804) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3569 decided Nov. 24, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 216)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Yong-hoon

Jeonju District Court Decision 2002No862 delivered on August 29, 2002

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below offered the same amount of KRW 50,00 to the elector of the above 2-house box No. 150,00,000,000 won to the elector of the above 2-house box No. 150,000,000,000 won to the elector of the above 7-house No. 1,000,000,000,000 won to the elector of the above 7-house No. 1,000,000,000 won to the elector of the above 2-house No. 1,000,000,000,000 won to the elector of the above 7-house No. 2,000,000,000 won to the elector of the above 1,000,000 won to be elected on Feb. 26, 200.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the crime of violating the prohibition of offering money and valuables

Article 50 (1) 1 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that no person shall provide, express his/her intention to provide, or promise to provide money, goods, entertainment, other property benefits, or public or private positions to an elector for the purpose of making himself/herself or a specific person elected or not elected as an executive officer or representative of a local agricultural cooperative, and Article 172 (1) of the Act provides that the act of violation shall be punished. However, Article 172 (1) of the Act does not provide for the definition of the elector, but Article 16 subparagraph 12 of the Act provides that the matters concerning the election of executive officers shall be stated in the articles of association of the local agricultural cooperative; Article 45 (3) of the Act provides that the election of the head of the cooperative shall be governed by the articles of association of the local agricultural cooperative; Article 52 (3) of the Act provides that the election of executive officers and recommendations of the head of the cooperative shall be prescribed by the election regulations of Annex 1; the chairperson of the above polling station (hereinafter referred to the election record shall be publicly announced the election day of the elector;

An agricultural cooperative is a voluntary organization organized voluntarily by its members to defend their interests (see Articles 2 and 5 of the above Articles of association) and autonomy by the association's articles of association and majority is guaranteed. Thus, an agricultural cooperative's self-governing law is a kind of autonomous legal norm and has the legal effect as well as the articles of association of the agricultural cooperative. Therefore, even if the above law does not provide for the definition of electors, the above regulations are stipulated in the officer election regulations, and thus, in interpreting Articles 50 (1) 1 and 172 (1) of the Act, the above regulations should be based on the contents of the officer election regulations in interpreting Article 50 (1) 1 of the Act and Article 172 (1) 1 of the Act. Thus, as the issue of whether the above agricultural cooperative is "an elector" as provided in Article 50 (1) 1 of the Act in the above case of an agricultural cooperative is determined at the date of public announcement pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the above Rules, and therefore, the act of offering money and valuables cannot be deemed as 200.

B. As to the crime of door-to-door visit

Meanwhile, Article 50 (2) of the Act provides that a person who intends to become an executive officer shall not visit members by door or gather at a specific place for an election campaign during the period stipulated by the articles of association, and Article 172 (2) of the Act provides that the act of violation shall be punished. As seen above, Article 52 (3) of the above articles of association provides that matters necessary for the election of executive officers and the recommendation of the election of executive officers shall be prescribed by the articles of association, and it shall be deemed that the above articles of association has the legal effect as an autonomous legal norm, and the above articles of association provides that Article 14 (3) shall be prepared in accordance with the delegation provisions of the above articles of association and sets the period for prohibiting door-to-door visits, etc. from the election day to the election day, and therefore, the crime of door-to-door visits prescribed in Articles 172 (2) and 50 (2) of the Act shall be established only from the

C. Determination on the instant case

However, among the facts charged of this case as to the violation of prohibition of offering money and valuables, the facts charged of this case as to ①, ⑤ the facts charged of this case, ② all of the facts charged of this case, ② the first order of January 18, 2002 without specifying the specific date, and the record reveals that the election day of president of a cooperative implemented on January 18, 2002 was the 6th day of the same month. (In addition, according to Articles 215 and 261 of the former or investigation records, Kim Jong-tae and 7 of the above facts charged of this case, the above facts of this case, ⑤ the defendant's door visit and offer of money and valuables to the non-indicted 5 and 7, and the defendant's act of offering money and valuables was made on the day before the election day, and therefore, it can be seen that the defendant's act of offering money and valuables was done on the first order of 10 days after the election day and 20 days after the election day.

Therefore, among the facts charged of this case as to violation of prohibition of offering money and valuables, the court below's measure which held that the above facts constituted violation of Article 172 (1) and Article 50 (1) 1 of the Act, violation of Article 172 (1) and Article 50 (1) 1 of the Act, and violation of Article 50 (2) of the Act, and violation of Article 172 (2) and Article 50 (2) of the Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of violation of Article 50 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act and the facts charged.

Therefore, the part concerning the above facts charged in the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed, and the above facts charged are concurrent crimes between the remaining guilty part against the defendant and Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment against the defendant shall be reversed in its entirety.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)