[1] Whether the crime of door-to-door visit under Article 50 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is punished only where a person who wants to be an officer conducts door-to-door visit by himself/herself (affirmative)

[2] The number of crimes of door-to-door visit where multiple members visited each other for an election campaign (=general crime)

[3] The scope of reversal by the court of final appeal in a case where it is not possible to find a guilty of a part of the facts constituting a single comprehensive crime among the concurrent crimes of Gap and Eul which were found guilty in the appellate court

[1] The crime of door-to-door visit under Article 50 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act shall be punished only where a person who wants to be an officer voluntarily visits a door-to-door visit. Even if a person in collusion with a non-identification or let a non-identification visit a door-to-door visit, if only a non-identification person conducts a door-door visit, the person as well as a non-identification person shall not be punished for the same crime.

[2] The crime of door-to-door visits under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is established by continuously visiting two or more houses, and when multiple members visit door-to-door for election campaign, the crime of door-to-door visits should be deemed an inclusive crime.

[3] In a case where a part of the facts constituting a crime of door-to-door visit cannot be found guilty, the fact that constitutes a condition for sentencing should be reversed in its entirety. Thus, the part of the door-to-door visit should be reversed. Since the facts constituting a crime of providing money and goods which the appellate court found guilty and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be sentenced, the appellate court's judgment should not be reversed in its entirety.

[1] Articles 50(2) and 172(2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act / [2] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 50(2) and 172(2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act / [3] Article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do937 decided Jun. 14, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1741) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 89Do55 decided Dec. 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 511) Supreme Court Decision 98Do3601 decided Feb. 12, 199 (Gong199Sang, 594)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Choi Han-seop

Changwon District Court Decision 2002No964 delivered on January 27, 2003

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

1. As to offering money and valuables

Examining the relevant evidence based on the record, the court below's decision that found the defendants guilty of this part of the charges that the defendants provided money and valuables to the voters seven times as shown in the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance for the purpose of getting them elected as the head of the association after the public announcement date of the election of the head of the association of the 1st City Livestock Industry Cooperatives is just, and contrary to the allegations of the facts, there is no illegality

2. As to door-to-door visit

Article 50 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act limits that "any person who intends to become an executive officer shall not visit cooperative members by door or gather at a specific place for his/her election campaign during the period prescribed by the articles of association" to "any person who intends to become an executive officer". In order to ensure fairness in the election, Article 50 (1), (3), and (4) of the same Act provides that "no person shall take any measure to restrict election campaign" shall be construed as "no person", while there is no restriction on the subject thereof (the crime of door-to-door visit as provided in Article 106 (1) of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Unlawful Election), the above crime of door-to-door visit shall not be defined as "a person who intends to become an executive officer", and the crime of door-to-door visit shall not be defined as "a person who wants to become an executive officer", and the crime of door-to-door visit shall not be defined as "a person who wants to be an offender's personal identity" and shall not be defined as an offender's own character and body.

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance and the court below, the defendants conspired to visit the association members for the election campaign after the public announcement date, and they convicted all of the facts charged. Upon examining the evidence in the record, the court below's findings and determination on the above facts are just and acceptable, and there is no illegality of misconception of the facts in the rules of evidence, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant 2 visited the union members solely, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant 1 visited the union members directly (the original court also visited part of the defendant 2 as to the receipt of money and valuables as to the relation of the facts charged at door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, and the facts charged by the court below as to the above facts charged by the defendant 2's door door door door door door door door door door door door and door door door door door door door door door door door door.

On the other hand, the crime of door-to-door visit under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is established by continuously visiting two or more houses (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do937, Jun. 14, 2002), and when multiple members visit door-to-door for election campaign, it shall be deemed a single crime (the crime of door-to-door visit is erroneous if the original judgment is deemed a concurrent crime). If it is impossible to find a part of the crime of door-to-door visit as guilty, it shall not be identical to the fact constituting the crime of crime of door-to-door visit. Thus, the part shall be reversed in its entirety, and since this part shall be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to the crime of providing each money and goods and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it shall not be reversed in its entirety (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3601, Feb. 12, 199).

3. 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.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)