1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict)

(b) Violation of the Public Official Election Act;

1. A. (b) Kim○○ (54***** 1*1*****) and the head of the sports business office ○○○ Seoul.

During the residential solar city, the Gu OOdong ○ apartment

Reference domicile ○○○○○○○○○○

2. A. (b) The A.m. Ma○○ (53*****1*****) and the representative of OOO.

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government residential Dong 0

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○dong

3. A. (b) WOO (65***** 1*1*******) and ○○○○○○○○○.

Housing Hanam-si OOOO apartment in Hanam-si

original domicile ○○ Dong in the original domicile

4. (b) ○○○ (50****** 1****** *) and the president of OOO.

Housing Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○ Dong

Busan Suwon-gu 00 Dong-dong

Man-Man-Ma

Attorney Kim Kim-○ (Apon for Defendant Kim-○, Defendant Kim-○, and Defendant Kim Il-young)

Attorney Yu-il, Law Firm Yun Law Firm (private ship for Defendant Son-○, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Lee Jong-hoon (Apon for defendant Lee ○-○)

April 18, 2008

Defendant ○○○ was punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for one year, and imprisonment for one year, and imprisonment for one year and six months.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 125 days each included in the above punishment against Defendant Kim-○, Defendant Kim-○, Defendant Ko-○, and Defendant Ko-○.

Of the facts charged against Defendant ○○○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to demand for provision of money and valuables against Defendant 1 Kim○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, Defendant 1, Defendant 2,

Criminal facts

From January 200, Defendant domination of ○○○○○ from around 2000 until then (main week). Defendant domination and ○○○○○○○ is an issue that Defendant Kim○ makes an investment in the said (main week) ○○○○○○○○ around October 2007. As such, it is a difference between two people known and known through the introduction of Kim○○○○○○.

Defendant ○○○ and Defendant 1 were friendly between high school and a high school, and Defendant 1 did not know the remainder of the Defendants until the instant case.

Defendant ○○○ and ○○○, who became aware of about four (4) years prior to drinking alcohol, are in a relationship between the two-year period and the two-year period. Defendant ○○ also became aware of the rest of the Defendants until the instant case.

On December 2, 2007, Defendant Noh○ found a video CD containing the contents of lectures to the effect that Defendant Noh ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office, which had been the 17th presidential election at the office of the first ○○○○○○○○○○, and the 2000 or around October 17, 200, the candidate for the 17th presidential election of the Gauri-gu Office was “a video CD, including the contents of lectures to the effect that he had established it.”

On December 4, 2007, Defendant Bo-○, around December 4, 2007, discovered the existence of the above CD to Defendant Kim-○, and Defendant Kim-○, on December 8, 2002, known Defendant Kim-○.

On the other hand, on December 8, 2007, Defendant Kim○-○ kept a copy of an extractd CD from some voice parts of the above video CDs from Defendant Bo○-○ around December 8, 2007.

Defendant ○○○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 00 recognized that the CD could have a significant impact on the 17th presidential election e.g., that the CD could have a e.g., a candidate for an overseas e., a candidate for an overseas e.g., a candidate for an overseas e., a candidate for an overseas e.g., a candidate for an overseas e., a candidate for an overseas e.g., a candidate for an overseas e., a candidate for an overseas e., a candidate for an overseas e.,

Accordingly, Defendant Kim ○, Defendant Kim○, and Defendant Boh○○ were able to receive money and valuables from the candidate for the presidential election using the aforesaid CD.

On December 14, 2007: around 00, Defendant Kim ○○ was the main line of ○○○○○○○○, a severe weather alert for the victim Lee Jong-young, at the hotel coffee shop located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. Then, around 19:0 on the same day, Defendant Kim ○, and Defendant Shin ○○ revealed the above video CD to the above ○○○ in a vehicle parked in the high water lot near Seongbuk-gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and around 19:0, the existence of this CD was known.

After that, at around 21:00 on the same day, Defendant Kim ○ transferred the CD to ○○ and the above OOO hotel coffee shop. Defendant Kim ○ requested the above Park ○ in this space “3 billion won in consideration of this CD,” and then, Defendant Kim ○ demanded the integrated one-lane ○○ to pay the amount of money threateninging the CD as “on the other hand.”

On December 15, 2007, at around 00: 00, Defendant Kim ○○ and Defendant Kim ○○ continued to met the said ○○○ at the ○○ hotel located in the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City drawing. Defendant Kim ○, on this spot, promised to exchange the CD with the said ○○ hotel located in the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seodong with an intention to transfer the CD to another candidate for the Internet, press, etc. and to make the CD published to the other candidate for the presidential election. The said ○○ agreed to exchange the CD with an adverse effect on the presidential election.

Defendant ○○○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 00 arrive at ○○ hotel to receive money on the same day at around 19:00 on the same day, but upon receiving a report from the above ○○○○○, the police called up.

As a result, Defendant Kim ○, Defendant Kim○, and Defendant do not intend to threaten the candidates for the above Hanna Party in relation to the 17th presidential election and, at the same time, jointly threaten the candidates for the above Hanna Party, but attempted to deliver money of KRW 3 billion to the people, but it was an attempted wind that is arrested.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of Defendant Kim ○, Defendant Kim ○, and Defendant Shin ○○

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○○;

1. Statement made by the police on gambling, ○○, and Kim○;

1. Each police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (related to submission of recording notes), recording notes (related to Ov hotel dialogues around 00: around 00 on December 15, 2007), recording notes (related to ○ hotel dialogues around 00 on December 15, 2007): 00 on December 19, 2007);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 6 and 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted joint accusation), Article 237(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of intimidation of candidates)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments prescribed for the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Joint Bribery))

1. Selection of penalty;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

Grounds for sentencing

The crime of this case committed by Defendant ○○○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, which was anticipated to be very big in social strike, threatened the candidates for the presidential election with the existence of the instant video CDs, and led to the attempted attempt to threaten the candidates for the presidential election. The crime of this case was significantly poor, and the crime was committed. The said Defendants distributed the instant video CD to the press after the arrest, by taking account of various factors such as the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime, and the age, character and conduct, and environment of the above Defendants as indicated in the records of this case.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Of the facts charged against Defendant ○○○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the demand for provision of money and valuables, and the summary of the facts charged against Defendant 00 is as follows.

A. At around 00 on December 12, 2007, Defendant Kim ○○, a joint crime by Defendant Kim ○○ and Lee ○○○, Defendant Kim ○, a joint crime on December 12, 2007: (a) sought the above ○○○○○ Office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government East-dong, with the head of Defendant Lee○○○, and asked this ○○○ to introduce a political personnel authority to purchase the above ○○ by seeking to find out the above ○○○○○○ office located in the ○○○○○○○○○, a part of the instant video CDs.

Accordingly, at around 15:00 on the same day, Defendant ○○ calls to Kim○-○, the head of the legal support group for the candidate for the Lee Chang-chul who belongs to the 17th presidential election, and contains an explosive content that “no hinging off any flag,” and that there is a good quality and content, and that MB is related to BBK, Defendant ○○ said that there was a large amount of money by the warden.

After that, around 20:30 on the same day, the Defendants met the above Kim○○ in the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu ○○○ hotel, and the Defendant Lee ○○○ issued the above Kim○○ by purchasing the CD to the above Kim○○○, “The Defendant’s fine was 3 billion won, so that he talked about the CD, and considered the above voice CD.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to offer money and valuables to the above Kim○ for the purpose of getting the candidate to be elected or getting the candidate to be elected in connection with the 17th presidential election.

B. On December 21, 2007, at around 30, 2007, Defendant Kim ○, Defendant Kim ○○, and Defendant Kim ○○○, on the joint crime committed by Defendant Kim ○○, and on December 21, 2007: Around 30, ○○○○○○ National Assembly member was present at the office of the 3rd floor of the ○○ Office in the Man-si, Man-si. At that time, Man-Nam requested to introduce a person related to the Man-dong Democratic Party from Defendant Kim ○○, who was constantly requested by the Man-si to introduce the person related to the Man-dong Party.

In this place, Defendant Kim ○-○ expressed that he had a value exceeding 10 billion won to “I would like to make the said voice CD in this CD” by taking out the said voice CD to the said ○○○○ and the head of the original planning division of the Central Democratic Party.

As a result, Defendant Kim○-○ and Defendant 1 conspired to offer money and valuables to the above ○○○ for the purpose of getting elected or getting elected in connection with the 17th presidential election or preventing the e-mail candidate from being elected.

C. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant Kim ○, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

As indicated in the facts of the crime, the above Defendants: (a) demanded Park ○ on December 14, 2007 and 15 to provide money and valuables to the said Park ○○ for the purpose of preventing the winning of the 17th presidential election by soliciting 3 billion won in return for the instant video CD; and (b) demanded the said Park ○○ for the purpose of preventing the winning of the 17th presidential election.

2. Determination:

A. Purpose of legislation is to interpret Article 230(3) of the Public Official Election Act (see Article 230(3)1)

The purpose of the Public Official Election Act is to punish a person related to an election in violation of the prohibition of contribution acts and to ensure the fairness of election by punishing a person related to an election as a kind of bribery in relation to an election. Article 230 of the same Act is to ensure the fairness of election by punishing a person for an election campaign that distorts an individual's free will due to an unfair decision-making, and an election campaign that should be conducted in accordance with an individual's free decision-making. This is to ensure the fairness of election. This is due to the reflect on the past election that has caused the confluence of the election campaign that has caused the confluence of the election campaign that has caused various types of election, and thereby, the purpose of the legislation is to eradicate the illegal contribution acts of candidates, etc. and regulate excessive election campaigns to realize a fair and clean election (see Constitutional Court Decision 11 November 1997).

27. 96HunBa60 see Order)

Meanwhile, Article 230 (3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that "the act of mediating or soliciting a crime by participating between the parties, such as solicitation of purchase and understanding, or actively purchasing or soliciting an election shall be punished by aggravated punishment." Article 230 (3) of the same Act provides that "the act of offering an order, solicitation, demand, or mediation," which is at issue in this case, shall be limited to the act of offering money or goods, etc. under Article 230 (1) 1 of the same Act; however, there is no limitation on the subject of offering money or goods, etc.; the other party to whom the money or goods, etc. are provided or belongs shall be an election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, election campaign worker, accountant in charge, election campaign speechmaker, or witness (hereinafter referred to as "candidate or person interested in the election"), and the elector's act of offering or not offering money or goods, etc., other than the one who has the right to vote under Article 3 of the Public Official Election Act, shall be an elector or a person who has the right to vote, etc.

B) Article 230 (3) of the same Act regulates crimes requiring acts stipulated in Article 230 (1) 1 of the same Act (the most general case is that an elector requests money or goods in connection with voting by a political party or candidate; hereinafter referred to as "crime of demanding"). According to the language and text of the same Act, there is no limitation on the subject and counterpart of the required act, but the person demanding shall be required to demand money or goods on the premise that the act of voting or at least is related to the act of an elector (i.e., the elector or party involved in the voting listed in subparagraph 1 of the same Article). In order to establish the required crime, it does not affect the establishment of the required crime. In other words, the requester must interpret that the requirement should be based on the premise that there is a substantial influence on the person who requested money or goods in relation to the act of voting or election as a limited person listed in Article 230 (1) 1 of the same Act.

B. Review of this part of the charges

In order for the Defendants to be punished for a crime of demand under Article 230(3) of the Public Official Election Act, in light of the legislative intent and form of the provision of the above public official election Act, the money and valuables to be provided by the other party should be reverted to, or be related to, the voters or election-related persons as provided by Article 230(1)1 of the Public Official Election Act, and in particular, if the Defendants demanded the “candidate” to provide money and valuables, as seen earlier, the Defendants committed an act of affecting the free voting of individuals by providing unfair economic benefits, and committed an act of influencing the free voting of individuals, and the purpose of legislation of the public official election Act and the promotion of legislation of the same Act, Article 230(1)1 of the same Act, and the purport of Article 230(1)1 of the same Act is limited to only the one who has the right to vote and is listed on the electoral register or who is eligible to be recorded on the electoral (the person referred to as the general public).

In light of the records, even if we assume that this part of the facts charged is recognized, even if the Defendants were to receive money and valuables from Kim○○, Ma○○, or Gab○○, etc., the Defendants appears to have received money and valuables from each of the Defendants. According to these facts, according to this part of the facts charged, the other party to the provision of money and valuables is the Defendants.

1) As to whether the Defendants were related to the crime of demand by the Defendants, it does not appear that the Defendants demanded money and valuables to the effect that they sell their voting will to Kim○○, Jeong-○, and Park Il-○, on the premise of their voting act as the elector for the 17th presidential election, even though the Defendants knew that they were able to influence the support of a specific candidate by providing CDs that contain the past speech and behavior of Lee Jong-dae, a candidate for the presidential election, to Lee Jong-young or to the candidate for the competition, and that they were not able to demand money and valuables from the general voters. Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants constituted an election-related person (i.e., an election campaign manager, chief of the election campaign liaison office, election campaign worker, accountant in charge, election campaign speechmaker, or witness of another political party or candidate, and (ii) otherwise there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants demanded to provide money and valuables to the voters or persons interested in the election, or that there was a demand for provision of money and valuables under the premise that the electors or persons interested in the election.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the court below found the Defendants not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because each of the facts charged against the Defendants falls under the absence of proof of crime. However, the court below found the Defendants guilty on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the demand for money and goods against Park○, among the facts charged against Defendant Kim○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, as long as it found the Defendants guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint conflict) and the Public Official Election Act due to intimidation of candidates.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court;

Judges Cho Jae-hwan

Judges Lee Jae-hoon