2011No126 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. Paper ○○ (50) Construction business;

1,000

Seoul High Court Decision 201

2. The size, ○ (47), and non-permanent office;

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

3. Ma○○ (58), driving.

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

4. Ma○○ (63), and non-permanent.

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

5.O0 (52), commerce.

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

6. High Court** (47),** Council members

Residential leisure time

Reference place of registration in case

7.Gra** (48),** Council members

Residential leisure time

Reference place of registration in case

8. This** (41),** Council members

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

9. Yellowish* (43),* Council members)* (43),* Council members

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

10. Sexity* (52),** Council members

Residential leisure time

Standard place of registration

11. Gambling* (49) * (49), and non-permanent

Residential leisure time

Seoul High Court Decision 201

Defendant 1 through 5, 8 through 11. Prosecutor (Objection to all the Defendants)

Residents of Jins;

Attorney Cho Jae-sik (for the purpose of defendant Cho Jae-ok, YO, YO, YO, YO)

Attorney Park Jae-hwan (Korean National Assembly Line for Defendant 1)

Attorney Cho Jong-hee, Kim Pung-hee (Defendant Ko*)

Attorney Jeong Jong-ju, Bosk-hee, and Gosk-hee (Defendant Kang *, this*, yellow**

For purposes of

Attorney Hak-gu, Huk-si (Defendant * for defendant *)

Attorney Park Dong-dong (Defendant Park* for the purpose of *)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2010Gohap285 Decided February 24, 2011

July 7, 2011

Of the judgment of the court below, the defendants' Mao, the outer ○○, MaoO, Ma above*, the defendant's total number reversed part of the judgment below**6 months of imprisonment, the defendant's outer ○○ was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment, the defendant's Mao0 was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment, the defendant's senior ***, the river** * the defendant's senior 1,500, and the above 1,000 won respectively.** the lecture* when the above fine was not paid * 50,000 won was converted into one day.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for the defendant's final and conclusive judgment, the defendant's final and conclusive judgment, and the defendant's final and conclusive judgment

Defendant 1 ordered each community service for 200 hours against Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1.

Defendant 1: 30,00,000 won each from Defendant 1, 200,000 won from Defendant 1, 30,000 won each from Defendant 1, 30,000 won each from Defendant 1, 30,000 won each from Defendant 1, 300,000 won *

Defendant O○○, this**, sulfur*, sex*, *, gambling**'s appeal and prosecutor's appeal and Defendant O○○, this**, sulfur*, *, Park*, Park*, all appeals against *.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant O's erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) Defendant O's wrong misunderstanding and misunderstanding of facts (1) purchase necessary goods, etc. on credit in the office while working in the election office**** in order to assist the election campaign, and the credit amount reaches a considerable amount, and Kim*** * through ** * in payment of credit amount with 37 million won from 37 million won and purchase of goods necessary for the office with the remainder of money, this cannot be viewed as a violation of Article 135 (3) of the Public Official Election Act.

(2) Defendants this** Defendant this** There was no fact that Defendant received KRW 5 million from the x○○ in relation to the election of the inn market.

Defendant 1 * Defendant 1 was sent to Defendant 1: (a) the front ○○ was before and after the delivery of an envelope to Defendant 1; (b) the last ○○ was called Defendant 1; (c) the process that Defendant 1 was put in an envelope before and after the call; and (d) the process that Defendant 1 was put in an envelope before and after the last ○○○’s entry of an envelope to Defendant 1; and (e) this * was reversed of Defendant 1’s peripheral statement about how he was taking a posture; and (e) this time ** Defendant 1 was the candidate for the Japanese market democracy * there was no reason that the countermeasures were held * 6th election office * there was no reason that Defendant 20 meters in length, * there was no reason that 6th election campaign of Defendant 1* there was no reason that Defendant 1 was an extension of 3* there was no reason that Defendant 1 was an extension of 20cm** there was no reason that Defendant 1 was an extension of 3* there.

Defendant Yellow*** Defendant 1: (a) was placed on the top of the front wing of the vehicle of this ** Defendant 1; (b) was released from Defendant 2, 200,000 won; (c) he was given a false statement to Defendant 2; (d) he was given a false statement to Defendant 3, 200,000 won; (c) he was given a false statement to Defendant 2; (d) he was given a false statement to Defendant 3, 200,000 won; and (e) was given a false statement to Defendant 3; and (e) was given a false statement to Defendant 2,00,000 won; and (e) was given a false statement to Defendant 3,00,000 won.

** Defendant 1’s statement that delivered an envelope containing five million won to * is not reliable.

(4) There is no fact that Defendant’s sex and sex were received KRW 5 million from Defendant’s M& in relation to the election of a leisure market.

O.**** The process of delivering the plastic & & 0 plastic bags to this defendant, namely, O& 0 and this defendant's sex & & 2, whether he or she puts his money bags into the main machine, or whether he or she directly made a statement as to whether he or she had placed money bags in the main machine ** this direct defendant sex**** he or she has first been in the toilet ** the defendant sex **** because he or she has left the toilet ** because he or she has not returned to the bar ** whether he or she has left the envelope * because he or she has no special relation with his or her election * because he or she has not received money in the former part of the envelope** because he or she has never been in the past part of the envelope* because he or she had no relation with his or her election son* because he or she had no specific relation with his or she had been in the past part of the envelope**.

(5) As to (a) the prosecutor (as to the charge of the receipt of the contributions by Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant * as to the contributions by Defendant Defendant Defendant * as to the receipt of the contributions by Defendant ** as to the total of Defendant Defendant Defendant 5 and the charge of the receipt of the contributions by Defendant * as to Defendant * as to the non-guilty part

Defendant species *** in accordance with the instructions, consistently stated that the delivery of KRW 5 million to **. There is no reason to see that the place of the instant crime is inappropriate for delivery of money. Defendant Song ○ is Defendant and Defendant *** in the election office immediately before the visit of Defendant 1 to the election office ** in this case, it is difficult to see that there was an act of disturbance of the cosmetics outside of the office *** in this case, it is difficult to see that the envelope was dried up before the elevator outside of the office *** in this case, * in this case * in this case, * in this case, * in this case, * in consideration of the fact that there was no reason to see that there was credibility of the instant envelope ** in this case* in consideration of the fact that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was credibility of the instant envelope ** in this case* in consideration of the fact that there was no reason to receive money from the constructor ** in this case.

(B) As to the receipt of the contributions by Defendant 1’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s attorney’s counsel

The first statement made in this entirety of the defendant Kim *** in the last statement made in correction of the other party to the delivery of money in the last ** in the course of the interview with the defendant river** in the last * in the course of the interview with the defendant, and the visit to the defendant Lee Jong * in the last * in the course of the interview with the defendant Lee Jong * in the last *. It is not possible to deny the credibility of the defendant Lee Jong * in the separate cases of this *** in this *** in this ** in this ** in this ** in this *, the time of the election campaign in advance, the defendant Lee * in this * in this *, the one who was the candidate of other * * in this *, the other * * in this * * in consideration of the fact that the defendant Lee * in this part received the money from the defendant Lee * in relation to the election of the plaintiff * in this part * in the opinion of the defendant * in consideration of the reasons that the defendant * Professor's's's's complaint received the defendant's complaint.

In light of the fact that Defendant 1 stated that he was sent 5 million won in an envelope 2 and 5 million won in an envelope to this***, this part of the facts charged, and that he was accused of the facts charged that he received five million won in an envelope through Defendant 1 through Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and that there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement, Defendant 1 and 5 million won in an indictment. In light of the fact that Defendant 1 and 5 million won in an election, it is clear that ** was given instructions from Defendant 1 and * received five million won in connection with the election from Defendant 1 and 5 million won in an election. Nevertheless, on the grounds that there is no proof of this part of the facts charged, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that found Defendant 1 guilty only * * 2 million won recognized by Defendant 1 and misunderstanding the facts that the judgment of the court below found Defendant 1 guilty.

The judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty on the grounds that there is no gratuitous nature, and found Defendant 1 guilty of the conjunctive charges (the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign) on the grounds that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 was found guilty on the grounds that he could not be found guilty of this part of the facts charged (the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign) and that Defendant 1 received money at the discretion of Defendant 1 as election campaign fund user** in the case of Defendant 10,000, and that Defendant 1 acquired money from election activities in addition to actual expenses.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below* (the defendant's paper: 6 months of imprisonment; 30,000 won in addition to 10 months; 30,000 won in addition to 30,000 won in prison; 30,000 won in addition to 6 months and 30 million won in prison, 30,000 won in prison and 30,000 won in addition to 6 months and 30,000 won in prison; 10 years in prison, 370,000 won in prison, 50,000 won in addition to 8 months and 50,000 won in prison; 2 months in prison and 5 million won in addition to 50,000 won in defendant's sex; 30,000 won in prison and 5 million won in addition to 5 million won in collection) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant Song, YO, O, O, this*, yellow*, sexuality*, *, Park * is too uneasy and unfair.

C. Defendant Park * The period in which the appeal was filed in accordance with the Reasons for Appeal

According to the records, defendant gambling** did not submit the statement of grounds of appeal within 20 days after receiving the notification of the receipt of the trial records on March 16, 201, and (Defendant Park** submitted the statement of grounds of appeal on April 13, 201, and the reason for appeal is alleged unreasonable as the reason for appeal. However, the above grounds of appeal are not stated in the petition of appeal, and there are no reasons for appeal even in the petition of appeal, and there are no reasons for ex officio investigation on the records. Thus, Defendant Park ** by decision under Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, because there is no reason for ex officio investigation on the records. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on the prosecutor's appeal, Defendant Park ** by a en bloc decision is dismissed.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant misunderstanding, this*, yellow*, sexuality*

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle by Defendant OO○

The lower court determined that Defendant O○○ received KRW 37 million from ** paid the purchase price for the goods, etc. of the election office on the premise that the “providing” or “receiving” under Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act does not necessarily necessarily belong to the interests of the recipient, constitutes a violation of Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act.

The election campaign manager, the chief of the election campaign liaison office, and the election campaign worker under Article 135 (1) of the Public Official Election Act.

Allowances and actual expenses may be paid to assistants and persons in charge of accounting. Article 135(3) of the same Act provides that "no one shall provide or express an intention to provide allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, or promise, direction, solicitation, demand, or receive any money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, except where allowances, actual expenses, or other benefits are provided pursuant to the provisions of this Act." Article 63(1) of the same Act provides that "a political party. A candidate, preliminary candidate, election campaign manager, election campaign manager, or chief of the election campaign liaison office who appoints or dismisses the election campaign manager, the chief of the election campaign liaison office, the election campaign worker, or assistants, shall report in writing to the competent election commission without delay." Since Article 135(2) of the same Act provides that "no person shall be allowed to receive allowances and actual expenses pursuant to the provisions of this Act, or any person who has been in charge of the election campaign, no more than 30 election campaign, election campaign workers or persons related to the election campaign."

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, defendant OOOOO reported to the competent election commission.** The election campaign worker or assistant is not an election campaign worker or assistant, but the first book No. 282 of the public trial records), and the actual fact ** The election campaign office's * The defendant OOOO received money and valuables in relation to the election campaign in violation of Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant's error in the grounds of appeal.

B. The judgment of the court below as to the defendant **'s assertion of mistake of facts

The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged **** * after being first examined as a witness in the case of bribery.** * * * Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma. * Ma, after being examined as a suspect, he was investigated as a suspect. The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged * * * Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma was put in the front door of the interview room and made a statement that he was released from the outside of the interview room, on the ground that the contents of the statement of Defendant 1 Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma * Ma * Ma Ma.

The court below held that Defendant 1's statement was not reliable when Defendant 1 was first examined *** there was no fact that Defendant 1 attempted to put money in an envelope between the clothes of Defendant 1. Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 *** * * was given an envelope when he was first examined her, and that Defendant 1 refused to do so last several times. Defendant 1* * * * and Defendant 2 made a statement that Defendant 1 did not have credibility in Defendant 1's statement in light of the fact that the location of the seat at the time of the countermeasures against Defendant 1 was changed. Defendant 2 made a statement that Defendant 1 would not have been continuously examined * * *, and that Defendant 2 made a statement that his seat was wrong at the court below's first time, and there was no reasonable doubt about the credibility of Defendant 1's statement in this circumstance * * this court's statement in this court's present circumstances * * there was no reasonable statement in this court's oral statement in this court *** this court's statement.

Defendant ** There is a change that Defendant 1’s outer ○ refused to dump the plastic bags from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the court, and the election office was abandoned, and Defendant 1’s outer dump from August 25, 2010 to the original trial and the court of the trial at the court.

5. Around 29.O. ** The defendant this** in an election office provided an envelope containing five million won in cash to the defendant. The defendant's statement should be examined as to what kind of the above change and the defendant's statement as above are more reliable due to the consistency, rationality, and consistent with objective circumstances recognized through other evidences.

In full view of the following circumstances as stated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, and in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the statement by the defendant YOO is reliable. Accordingly, the judgment by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of the facts as alleged by the defendant ***. The defendant **** this defendant Lee this, the defendant Lee ****, made a false statement that he provided money to the defendant **, and there is no circumstance that the defendant's statement that he provided money and valuables to the defendant ** is forced to take advantage of it or gain any profit from it. Rather, the defendant's motive was subject to criminal punishment for a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act by making a statement that he provided money and valuables to the defendant ** * by attending the National Police Agency special investigation on August 25, 2010 and the defendant *** a bribe in a bribe.

수수 사건으로 참고인조사를 받다가. 오 * * 으로부터 오 * * 이 지정하는 시 · 도의원 후보자들에게 금품을 제공하라는 지시를 받은 다음 피고인 총으로 부터 시 · 도의원 후 보자들에게 건넬 돈을 교부받아 그 중 500만 원을 피고인 이 * * 에게 건네 준 사실을 인정하였는데, 피고인 곽○○이 수사기관에 출석하여 조사를 받게 된 경위와 그 과정에 비추어 피고인 곽○○이 수사기관의 강압에 의하여 진술을 한 것이라고 보기 어렵다 . ( 다 ) 피고인 곽○○은 피고인 이 * * 에게 전화를 걸어 ' 오시장님 ( 오 * * ) 이 뭐를 전달해 줘야 하는데 뵙죠. 어디 계신가요 ? ' 라고 했더니 피고인 이 * * 가 ' 내가 사무실로 가겠다 ' 라고 하여 오 * * 의 선거사무실에서 피고인 이 * * 를 만나게 되었고, 피고인 이 * * 가몇 차례 거절하다가 계속 사정하자 돈 봉투를 받았다고 진술하고 있다 . ( 라 ) 피고인 곽○○은 2010. 9. 12. 자 피고인 이 * * 와의 경찰 대질신문에서 피고인 이 * * 에 대하여 ' 오 * * 이 사실대로 말해 달라 해서 어쩔 수 없이 말할 수밖에 없습니다. 제가 이 * * 의원을 생각하면 잠이 오지 않습니다. .. . 특히 * * 어른에 대해. . 저한테 조금 거절을 했잖습니까. 그래서 마음이 아픕니다. 이 * * 의원님 생각하니까 눈물이 나더라구요 ' 라고 솔직한 감정을 표현함으로써 자신이 피고인 이 * * 에게 금품을 제공한 사실을 밝힘으로써 피고인 이 * * 가 겪을 고충을 염려하고 있음을 간접적으로 보여주고 있( 마 ) 다만, 피고인 곽○○이 피고인 이 * * 에게 500만 원을 전달할 당시의 상황과 관련하여 전화 통화 내용, 돈 전달 당시의 피고인 이 * * 의 태도나 자세 등에 관한 피고인 곽○○의 수사기관 및 법정에서의 진술이 다소 차이가 있으나, 피고인 곽○○이 피고인 이 * * 뿐만 아니라 다른 시 · 도의원 후보자들에게도 돈 봉투를 전달하였다는 점에서 기억의 한계에 따른 자연스러운 결과로 보이는 반면, 앞에서 본 바와 같이 피고인이 * * 에게 돈을 준 사실 자체에 관한 핵심적 부분에 있어서 피고인 곽 의 진술 내용이 수사기관에서의 최초 진술에서부터 당심 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 유지되어 오고 있는 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 그와 같은 사정만으로 피고인 곽○○의 금전 제공에 관한 진술을 믿을 수 없는 것으로 배척하기는 어렵다 . ( 바 ) 피고인 곽은 선거철에 시장 후보자가 시의원 후보자 등에게 격려금을 주는 것은 관례라고 생각하였기 때문에 금품 전달의 상대방이 연장자라고 하더라도 굳이 돈을 전달하는데 장애를 느끼지 못하였던 것으로 보이고, 또 선거철에 불법으로 금품을 교부하는 자로서는 금품 전달 후 바로 장소를 떠나는 것이 상례이지 상대방이 연장자라고 하여 예의를 갖추어 응대하여야 한다는 것도 경험칙상 쉽게 수긍하기 어렵 ( 사 ) 피고인 이 * * 를 수행한 이 * * 는 경찰 전화 조사에서 피고인 곽○○과 피고인이 * * 중 누가 먼저 오 * * 선거사무실 내 면담실에서 나왔는지에 대한 질문에 " 계속 주시하고 있던 상황이 아니었으므로 정확히 기억하기 어렵지만 피고인 이 * * 가 먼저 나온 것 같다 " 고 진술한 반면, 원심 법정에서는 “ 계속 주시하고 있던 상황이었고, 피고인 이* * 가 먼저 나왔다. 피고인 곽○○이 나오는 것은 보지 못하였다 " 고 진술하여 진술의 정확성이 담보되지 않았다 .

C. The judgment of the court below as to Defendant Yellow**’s assertion of mistake of facts (1)

The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the following grounds: (a) Defendant 1 was first examined as a witness in the case of bribery**** Defendant 1, who was the party in charge of the first examination of the bribery; (b) Defendant 1 was examined as a suspect; (c) Defendant 1 was placed in Defendant 1 Y** * * * * *, who was not directly exposed to Defendant 1; (d) Defendant 1 was placed in a chief or a boom; and (e) Defendant 1 was pushed away from her car because there was no circumstance to doubt the specific and truth; (e) Defendant 1 YO’s above statement was found to have been made in a plastic bag inside * * Defendant 1’s vehicle; and (e) Defendant 1 was convicted of this part of the facts charged: (e) Defendant 50 million won was received through this * 50 million won.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) as to the Defendant’s assertion: (b) there is no credibility by reverseing the Defendant’s statement on the place where the Defendant was placed with a monetary envelope or on the amount received from the Defendant’s closing; and (c) the Defendant’s statement that he was issued for the purpose of delivering the envelope to the Defendant’s candidates for the first City/Do council members, without implied permission, on the ground that the Defendant’s statement was not enough to doubt the credibility of the Defendant’s statement (b) the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that it was not sufficient to suspect the credibility of the Defendant’s statement (c).

Defendant Yellow*** has a change in the position of Defendant 1 to the court of the trial since the investigative agency to the trial of the trial, that Defendant 1 was refusing to dump the plastic bags, and Defendant 1 stated on August 25, 2010 that Defendant 1 left the bags containing five million won in cash on May 29, 2010 after the special investigation and investigation by the National Police Agency and investigation by the National Police Agency on August 25, 2010 to the court of the trial and the court of the trial. Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 was released from the vehicle * due to the consistency, rationality, and consistent with the objective circumstances recognized through other evidence. Defendant 2 was considered to be more reliable among the above change ** the above statement by whether Defendant 1 was made or not to have received donations from this Defendant 1.

In full view of the following circumstances as stated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, and in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's statement was reliable. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of the facts as alleged above****. There is no ground for the argument of the court below*******. There is no circumstance in which the defendant's statement that he provided money to the defendant **** by making a false statement that he provided money to the defendant Y*, and rather, the defendant 100 was punished for a violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a contribution act by giving the statement that he provided money to ***.

수수 사건으로 참고인 조사를 받다가. 오 * * 으로부터 오 * 이 지정하는 시 · 도의원 후보자들에게 금품을 제공하라는 지시를 받은 다음 피고인 총으로 부터 시 · 도의원 후 보자들에게 건넬 돈을 교부받아 그 중 500만 원을 피고인 황 * * 에게 건네 준 사실을 인정하였는데, 피고인 곽○○이 수사기관에 출석하여 조사를 받게 된 경위와 그 과정에 비추어 피고인 곽○○이 수사기관의 강압에 의하여 진술을 한 것이라고 보기 어렵다 . ( 다 ) 피고인 곽 은 피고인 황 * * 에게 전화를 걸어 ' 오시장님 ( 오 * * ) 이 뭐를 전달해 줘야 하는데 뵙죠. 어디 계신가요 ? ' 라고 했더니 피고인 황 * * 이 ' 내가 사무실 쪽으로 가겠다 ' 라고 하여 만나게 되었고, 피고인 황 * * 은 여수시의회 의원 선거에 무소속으로 출마하여 오 * * 의 선거사무실에 들어 올 수 없어 사무실 밖에서 만나게 되었다고 진술하고 있다 .

(D) Defendant yellow ** * * Had the vehicle off as the Defendant was pushed off. In light of the foregoing attitude, Defendant yellow ** * Had the Defendant’s refusal of the bags that Defendant 1 want to dry. However, Defendant Red ** * * * Had the Defendant’s attitude of being pushed down on the vehicle, so it cannot be deemed that Defendant yellow * *’s behavior and whether Defendant ○○ ○○ was frighted on the part of the vehicle. Thus, it is inconsistent with the flow of time.

(E) Defendant 1: (a) there seems to be no special circumstance that ○○○○ in contact with Defendant 1, or that ○○○ in contact with Defendant 1, rather than 0 or that ○○ in an election campaign, should immediately meet Defendant 1, with Defendant 1’s outer phone. (b) Defendant 1’s outer ○○ in September 13, 2010 ** * * in the police substitute newspaper with Defendant 1 * * * ... difficult, a National Assembly member could not avoid her statement * 0, under the circumstances that would have to make 0 or more statements due to Defendant 1’s special investigation into the National Police Agency; (c) Defendant 1 made a false statement to the effect that 0,000 won would not have been initially made due to Defendant 1’s oral reliance * 0,000 won, and that 0,000 won could not have been initially made due to Defendant 1’s oral reliance *.

D. The judgment of the court below as to the defendant sex**'s assertion of mistake of facts (1)

The court below convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges that he received money in this part of the facts charged, on the following grounds: (a) he received money bags from the investigative agency to the court below's decision after undergoing a large-scale examination of Defendant sex*** to the court below's decision-making; (b) he received money bags from the KOOOO in the election office ** to the KOOOO; (c) he stated that he sent money bags to the OOO OO's office *** to the OOO's office * to the KOOO's office * * to the KOOO's office * to the KOO's order; and (c) he stated that he puts money bags into the GO's ** * * to the KOO's main machine *; and (d) he received money bags in this part of the facts charged:

The lower court determined that there was no impact on Defendant’s sexuality** * Defendant sexuality* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ’ Ma of this part memory’’’s credibility of the statement, although the lower court stated that there was no special doubt about the detailed situation after the Defendant’s delivery of an envelope of money, such as the place where the Defendant * * * * * the Defendant sexuality* * * on the ground of the circumstances indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that there was no influence on this Court’s decision. (2) The lower court recognized that this part of this case’s memory was an offer of money.

Defendant sexuality*** has been argued that the investigative agency has refused to fluort this money bags from the time to the court of the trial, and there has been a change that he refused to fluort this money bags ** on September 8, 2010 ** around May 29, 2010 * from the police station to the court of the trial at the court of the trial at the court of the trial at the court below and the court of the trial at the court of the trial * in the above office * in the above office * in the space of the Defendant sex**** in the space of the above office * in accordance with the degree of objective circumstances recognized through the consistency, rationality, and other evidence, etc. As such, Defendant sexuality** in accordance with the aforementioned change and * in the above statement * in the above statement * in this case * in this case * in this case has received the donation of the Defendant * in this case *.

In full view of the following circumstances as stated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, and based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, **'s statement has credibility. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts* as alleged above.

Defendant sexuality** The argument of this case is without merit.

(A) * * on September 13, 2010, it would be better to give ... '.' at the police large newspaper with * ... .. .. .. I think ... I think ... I think ... I think .. I think .. I think . . I will do . I will do . I will do . I will . . I will . . I will . . I will . ' I will . I will . ' I will . I will * I's sexual character * I's statement * I't have ever stated ** I's sexual character * I's statement * I't have ever stated * I't have ever stated * I't have been able to give her a false statement * I't have ever ever before and after her oral statement * I't have made a false statement * there is no possibility that I't have made her her own own oral statement.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecutor's defendant defendant ○○, defendant 2, defendant 2, defendant 1, defendant 2, defendant 2, defendant 3,

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) with respect to the receipt of contributions by Defendant Defendant Defendant Hah ** to make contributions and Defendant Hah * to receive contributions

No one shall make contributions to an election for a candidate or a political party to which he/she belongs, or receive contributions from a person, for whom contributions are restricted.

Defendant Ma** from Do Council members to provide a certain amount of money from Do Council members * * Ma for election * * Ma with money in custody * * * Ma with money in custody * Do Council members according to Do Council instructions.

On May 27, 2010: Around 19:00, the Defendant’s total sum ****** * * * * Defendant’s height before the elevator at the entrance of the election office ** * * * the market-friendly situation where the market was made by the Defendant before her early payment, and the market was fright to be fright.” The Defendant laid a white bag containing five million won in cash.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is made by the court below in collusion with ***** * * * * * made a contribution to the market election, and * * * * made a contribution from * * *. (2)

The court below found that ① the place of delivery of the envelope was open to the public,* Defendant 1, who was the candidate for Si Council members, and * Defendant 1, who was given the envelope without any kind of friendly relationship * it is difficult to obtain the Defendant’s permit to receive the envelope without any kind of money. ② Defendant ○○ stated that Defendant 1 was not the other person *, but * Defendant * was sent before the elevator at the seat of the election office **** Defendant 1, who was sent the envelope with Defendant 1, but Defendant 1 did not know that he was not guilty of the Defendant 1, * * * * * Ma Ma Ma Ma, who was given the Defendant’s refusal to deliver the envelope * Ma Ma Ma 1, who was given the Defendant 1, on the ground that there was no inconvenience for Defendant 1 to receive the envelope * Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma, who was given the Defendant 1 to the Defendant 2.

(3) The judgment of this Court (A) related legal principles

In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, if the defendant denies the fact of the receipt and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, the statement by the person who provided the money must have the admissibility of evidence, and there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt, and when determining the credibility of the statement, it should also be examined not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency of the contents of the statement itself, but also its human beings.

In addition, the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act) but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is not likely to be a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Here, the reasonable doubt in this context is a question based on logical and empirical rules regarding the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts requiring proof, and it is based on this theory that is advantageous to the defendant. Thus, any doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is not included in a rational doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 208Do7112, Dec. 11, 2008). If a witness’s statement is not consistent with 208Do1081, Dec. 29, 2008.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the statement of the Defendant species is credibility enough to exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

1) On the point of Paragraph (1) and (3) cited by the lower court, the place where the instant plastic bag was delivered to the Defendant is the 7th floor of the building having a place of business, such as election office and Lestop. However, considering the fact that the receipt of unlawful money and valuables closely conducted between the two persons may be made within a short period of time in light of the empirical rule (the total number of the Defendant stated in the court below that it was not more than 15 seconds in delivering the plastic bag to the Defendant ** * the negative factors that could not deliver the plastic bag to the Defendant 2). Moreover, considering the time spent to deliver the plastic bag to the Defendant 1, it is inappropriate for the lower court to take the Defendant 1 as the 0th floor and the time spent to deliver the plastic plastic bag to the Defendant 2, the lower court’s act of giving and receiving the said money and receiving it from the Defendant 1 to the outside of the office * Defendant 2’s office * the fact that the Defendant 2 was in conflict with the Defendant 2’s office’s office.

14. The same content is written in the written statement submitted to the police on the day when he/she testified that he/she had been present at the scene of the police *** under the police investigation. The court below stated in the court below that the police was present at the time, and that ** was present at the time before he/she under the police investigation ** before he/she was under the police investigation ** * * * * * * in the course of his/her speech before he/she was under the police investigation * * * * in the course of his/her testimony * in the court of the first instance * * * when he/she was informed of the fact that he/she was in relation to the violation of the Public Official Election Act? " he/she was called at the police station on September 201 and became aware of the fact that he/she was present at the police station on the day of his/her call * * from the time he/she made the testimony of the defendant *** after he/she made the testimony from the defendant **.

*** on the other hand, he stated that he was using a yellow plastic bag on his hand, while he stated that he was not in use of a yellow plastic bag on his hand ** he was in use of a yellow plastic bag, and there is a difference in memory on the same phenomenon. Defendant Defendant Chye ** he prepared all of the candidates in a white plastic bag on the same day he delivered money to Defendant Chye ** * he was in use of a yellow plastic plastic plastic bag * * * he was in use of such a yellow plastic plastic bag, and did not appear as a simple memory. Furthermore, in light of these circumstances, he cannot be seen as a simple memory. Furthermore, Defendant Chye * * * Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor was in use of an election campaign site* * * * Professor Professor was in use of an election campaign site and made it difficult for Defendant * * * * * Ha was in use of an election campaign site.

3) On the issue of Paragraph 3, which the court below cited in the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is that it is hard to believe that the defendant was not guilty of the crime in the past *** has committed the crime in the past. However, there is no record that there is no strong doubt as to whether such logic is natural in accordance with the empirical rule, and there is no evidence to deem that the above logic is not easy to commit a crime unlike other defendants ****. Whether to receive unjust money or valuables is offered between the parties. The issue of whether to provide money or valuables may vary from time to time depending on the time of provision of money or valuables, mutual recognition of the degree of illegality of the money or valuables offered.

4) As to No. 444 cited by the lower court, the Defendant stated to the effect that he saw that he was not able to see some of the 0-day and Do council members’ plastic bags, and that he would not have any inconvenience to see *** there is no person who knows to her, and that he was given money to the rest of this Si/ Do council members. From interpreting the content of the Defendant Song ○○’s statement, it may be said that there was little inconvenience in the process of delivering the plastic bags to the candidates of this City/Do council members, but it is difficult to interpret that she was 0 times or Do council members’ statement to see that she had no money bags or that she had no duty to deliver the Defendant’s money to the 0-year candidates, and that she had already made a false statement to Defendant 1’s total statement with the aim of giving money to the Defendant 5-year candidates. It is difficult to interpret that she had made a false statement to her for the reason that she had made a false statement.

7) In light of the following facts: Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Hah***’s Bahon’s bag, and the Do Council members expressed to the effect that “the Do Council members will see the Do Council members as a encouragement money,” and ** the Do Council members need to provide their names through the candidates of the Do Council members in the relevant local constituency, and there was a need for the Do Council members to provide their names to those who would know the Do Council members and to provide the Do Council members with the Do Council members, and the Do Council members received the Do Council members’ money as follows: Defendant Hah * not only * but also Do council members provided the Do council members with the Do council members’ name as the Do council members, and it is possible to understand and understand that the Do candidates received the Do council members’ money as the Do council members’ fear to receive the Do council members affiliated with the Do council members as the Do council members.

8) Defendant Defendant Ch *** Defendant Ch Haf, accompanied by the vehicle to the vehicle when providing the envelope to the Defendant, * * * * Defendant Ch Haf, containing one bag containing five million won from the vehicle of the Defendant Ch Haf to the election office, ** Defendant Ch Haf, ** * Defendant Ch Haf, and Defendant Ch * * before the election office. In addition, considering that Defendant Ch Haf was successful in delivery of money to the candidates of this City/Do Council members, if it was considered that the Defendant Ch Maf had much nature to keep money in the middle, and that there was no reason for delivery of money to the Defendant Ch Do Council members * * Maf * Haf, who was a every time it was necessary to give money to the Defendant *, who was made in the middle of the election, there was no possibility that the money should have been delivered to the Defendant *, who was made a false statement in the middle of the election.

9) Defendant 1* * Defendant 1’s claim that she would offer money and valuables through Defendant 1’s total number of Defendant 1 who is about to put himself on a vessel. However, if he had such idea, Defendant 3 had to secure clear data about the illegal act in which he intended to offer money and valuables and to report it to an investigation agency, and Defendant 1 * * *’s claim is difficult to accept.

10) However, there is statement that he cannot memory the current situation, i.e., whether there is a banner, chemical powder, scambling, etc. in front of the elevator, i.e., whether he has a banner, scambling, etc., while cutting down the plastic bag containing 5 million won to the defendant Lee Jong-ok*, but in total the defendant Lee J.

** Because the Defendant stated that, in the absence of any room before the elevator, he has delivered the plastic bags and returned immediately before the elevator, he was interested in the delivery of the plastic bags.

It can be said natural that it is natural that the failure to properly memory is natural.

B. The summary of the facts charged (1) with respect to the receipt of the contributions by Defendant Jong's lecture* the contribution act to Defendant Lee and the receipt of the contributions by Defendant *

No one shall make contributions to an election for a candidate or a political party to which he/she belongs, or receive contributions from a person, for whom contributions are restricted.

Defendant’s total amount of money *** from Do Council members to provide a certain amount of money to the candidates of City/Do Council members ** * for election * * * Ma with money kept in this feasten * * Do Council members according to the order of Do Council members.

On May 27, 2010, defendant Song-si sent a white bag containing five million won in cash to the election office around 40:5. 19:40, ********* the defendant lecture in the election office**********. The O market is high that it is high that it is high, and the white bag containing five million won in cash was dried.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is made by the court below in collusion with ******'s *'s Do lecture**'s Do lecture on the market election, and Defendant river** was made a contribution from ***.

The court below ruled that ① Defendant 1 was the other party to the delivery of this part of the plastic bag* Kim * stated in his statement to the other party to this part of the plastic bag*, but * Kim * in the process of distinguishing the Defendant from the police investigation to Kim * in the process of identifying the Defendant’s paper plastic bag, unlike the Defendant’s paper statement * * in the investigation of the National Police Agency * in the other party to the delivery of the plastic bag ** * in the course of delivering the plastic bag ** in confusion with other persons who failed to deliver the plastic bag *** in the delivery of the plastic bag ** * in the course of delivering the plastic bag * in the course of delivering the plastic bag * in the course of delivering the plastic bag * in the name of the Defendant to the other persons who participated in the delivery of the plastic envelope * in the delivery of the plastic envelope * in the name of the Defendant to the other persons who did not know the fact that there was no inconvenience that the prosecutor refused to receive the plastic envelope * in the name of the Defendant *.

In a case where the issue is whether to receive or receive money is the issue, if the defendant denies the fact of the receipt and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data to support this, the statement by the person who provided the money must have the admissibility of evidence, and there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt, and when determining the credibility of the statement, it should also be examined not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, and consistency of the contents of the statement itself, but also its human beings.

In addition, the probative value of evidence is left to the discretion of a judge (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act) but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial is not likely to be a reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as probative value without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Here, the reasonable doubt in this context is a question based on logical and empirical rules regarding the probability of facts that are inconsistent with the facts requiring proof, and it is based on this theory that is advantageous to the defendant. Thus, any doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is not included in a rational doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 208Do7112, Dec. 11, 2008). If a witness’s statement is not consistent with 208Do1081, Dec. 29, 2008.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the statement of the Defendant species is credibility enough to exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

1) As to paragraph (1) (i) cited by the lower court, the health stand, Defendant 2, 2010.

8. A witness was examined from the Special Investigation Division of the National Police Agency on August 29, 2010, and * On August 29, 2010, the other party to the delivery of a plastic bag by the police station* Non- these Kim*, the other party to the delivery of the plastic bag was identified as *.

On August 30, 2010, he was examined as the second examination of the suspect, Kim ** Lee Ha's lecture *** *. He was examined as of August 29, 2010, and he was found to have been in fact at the office to memory ** Kim * the defendant's lecture *** * the defendant's office. In addition, the defendant's paper stated **** * * the other party of the plastic bag delivery of this money * * * the defendant Kim Kim *, the defendant's photograph was not well distinguishable when it was identified as a photograph in the police investigation. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that there was a confusion between the defendant Lee Jong-won and the other defendant's defendant's 2's old crime under this case's old provision * because it was difficult to say that there was a confusion with the other defendant's defendant's defendant's 2's old crime under this case's old provision *.

In addition, there is no documentary evidence to deem that such logic is natural in light of the empirical rule as well as strong doubt as to whether it is natural, and there is no record to deem that it is not easy to commit a crime, unlike other Defendants. Moreover, the issue of receipt of unjust money may vary from time to time depending on the nature of money and valuables provided between the parties, the time and situation of provision of money and valuables, mutual recognition of the degree of illegality of money and valuables provided.

3) On the issue of paragraph (3) cited by the lower court, Defendant 2 stated that he stated to the effect that he was able to look at some of the 0-si candidates and Do council members, and that he would not have any person ** there is no inconvenience for Defendant 2 to do so, and that ○○ would deliver money bags to candidates for the rest of Si/Do council members. When interpreting the contents of Defendant 2’s statement, it may be said that there was little inconvenience in the process of delivering garbage bags to candidates of this City/Do council members, but it is difficult to interpret that she would have consistently made an investigation into Defendant 2’s her statement that she would not have received money bags among the 0-Do council members or that she would have failed to deliver money to the 0-Do council members. It would be difficult to interpret that she would have made a false statement to Defendant 4 that she had made a false statement for the purpose of giving money to Defendant 2’s general investigation agency* because she would have made a false statement.

6) The defendant Lee Jong-chul*** Ha-ju accompanied by the vehicle to the vehicle when providing the envelope to the defendant Lee Jong-chul** * * Ha-ju, the defendant Kim Jong-dae, made a statement that the vehicle had a bag containing five million won from the vehicle Lee Jong-chul to the election office *** * the defendant river ** * this refusal to deliver the money to the candidate for the defendant Lee Jong-chul, and the delivery of money was made indirectly. In addition, if the defendant Lee Jong-chul was thought to have delivered money to the candidate for the City/Do council members, it is far more natural to keep the money in front of the defendant Lee Jong-chul, Kim Jong-, * * * * the defendant's wall with no reason to receive money from the defendant Lee Jong-chul, * * the defendant Lee Jong-ok's wall with no reason to deliver the money to the defendant Lee Jong-hee, * there was no possibility to do so in the middle of his oral statement ** there was no reason to do so.

C. The summary of the facts charged in this part as to (1) the amount granted out of the charge of contribution to Defendant 1 1 * Defendant 1 *

No one shall make contributions to an election for a candidate or a political party to which he belongs.

Defendant 1: (a) heard that Defendant 1 would offer a certain amount of money to the candidates of Si/Do Council members. (b) around May 28, 2010, Defendant 1: (c) received money from *** for the election of *** as the direction of Do Council members.

On May 29, 2010, 19: 30 times of leisure time around 2010, 19: 30, ** * in the vicinity of a police box* * through this subject-matter * * * through the head of the election election election district in the vicinity of a police box * * * * * * * * * ? Ha the head of the top of the election, such as the head of the Gu, ? Hab the head of the Gu, who works, e.g., 5 million won in cash, added one bag.

As a result, Defendant 1 made contributions in collusion with ****** * * in relation to the market election.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below stated that Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 had 5 million won in an envelope and sent this ** * * * * * * * *, he received two bags with the thickness of the same bag from Defendant 1, 2, and delivered * * * * * * her wife, * * * her wife * * , but there was one delivery to Defendant 1 * * 5 million in an envelope.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s statement was made; (b) the Defendant’s gambling* did not dispute the facts charged against him that he received KRW 5 million, but did not specifically confirm the amount; (c) left the vehicle in the vehicle and lost the envelope; and (d) the Ka Center stated that he lost KRW 2 million. In full view of the fact that it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was delivered to the Defendant *** * KRW 5 million in excess of KRW 2 million, on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was delivered to the Ka Center, the Defendant convicted him of this part of the facts charged *** 2 million in contribution act as to KRW 2 million as to the act of contribution.

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ①피고인 곽○○은 봉투 2개에 500만 원 ( 50, 000원 권 100장 ) 을 담아 매제인 이* * 에게 건네면서 최 * * 과 피고인 박 * * 의 유세 현장에 가서 전달해 달라고 부탁한 점 , ②이 * * 은 피고인 곽 으로부터 두께가 같은 돈 봉투를 받아 바로 피고인 박 * 의 선거 유세장으로 가서 피고인 박 * * 에게 봉투 1개를 전달하였고, 다음으로 최 * * 의 선거유세장으로 가서 최 * * 의 처인 민 * * 에게 ' 오시장님 심부름으로 갖다 주라고 해서 왔습 니다 ' 고 하였더니 민 * * 가 ' 시장님이 많이 도와주시는데 뭘 또 주시느냐 ' 며 거절하다가 재차 내밀자 민 * * 가 이를 받았다고 진술하고 있는 점. ③ 민 * * 는 이 * * 으로부터 받은 봉투에 200만 원이 들어 있었다고 기억 하면서도 그 중 100만 원을 가게 인건비로 사용하였는데, 10, 000원 권 지폐인지, 50, 000원 권 지폐인지 모르겠다고 진술하고 있어 민* * 가 사실을 그대로 진술하지 않고 있다고 보이는 점. 이 * * 이 피고인 곽 으로 부터 받은 현금 중 일부를 민 * * 에게 전달하지 않고 중간에서 착복하였을 가능성은 희박한 점, ⑤피고인 박 * * 은 500만 원이 들어 있는 봉투를 건네받았다는 공소사실에 대하여 자백하고 있고, 피고인 곽○○의 진술에 신빙성이 있으며, 피고인 박 * * 과 이 * * 사이에 수수 금액에 차이가 발생한다는 것은 상정하기 어려운 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 민 * * 는 이 * * 으로부터 500만 원이 들어 있는 돈 봉투를 지급받았다는 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있다. 따라서 원심이 이와 달리 이 부분 공소사실을 무죄로 판단한 것에는 사실을 오인하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있고, 이를 지적하는 검사의 이 부분 항소이유 주장은 이유 있다 .

D. The judgment of the court below as to the receipt of the donation by Defendant Ui and Oiop (1)

The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of the primary charge (the receipt of donations) of this part of the facts charged (the receipt of donations) on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that Defendant 1 was receiving money for other purposes, and Defendant 1 was guilty of the primary charge (the receipt of donations) of this part of the facts charged (the receipt of donations) on the ground that Defendant 1 was not guilty, and Defendant 1 was guilty of the primary charge of this part of the facts charged (the receipt of money), and Defendant 1 was not guilty of the primary charge of this part of the facts charged (the receipt of money in relation to election campaign) in order to pay the cost of the vehicle maintenance, which is the cost incurred in performing activities such as collecting information about other candidates as an election campaign worker, as an election campaign worker *** in the course of performing activities such as collecting information about other candidates.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor

4. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. Defendant U.S. Co., Ltd. (the above Defendants and Prosecutor) against Defendant U.S. and U.S. (the Defendant Co., Ltd.) received KRW 30 million from **, Defendant O0 received KRW 50 million, and Defendant U.S.’s crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act, such as this case, needs to be strictly punished in light of the purpose of the Public Official Election Act, which seeks to prevent the election campaign.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendants recognized the crime of this case as substitute in the trial, and found that the defendants committed the crime of this case, most of the money received by them would have been spent for the existing activity expenses. The defendant 00 as a senior member and supported the election campaign of this case** as a senior member, the defendants did not have any previous course of the crime of this case, the defendants did not have any previous course of the crime of this case, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the defendants' age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc. are considered to be unfair.

The Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Defendant mistake and prosecutor against Defendant mistake

Defendant OE received KRW 37 million from * in relation to election campaign, and the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act, such as this case, requires strict punishment in light of the purpose of the Public Official Election Act to prevent the election of the right.

On the other hand, there are more favorable circumstances, such as that Defendant OOOO had a relative as OOO****’s election affairs room, leading to the instant crime, most of the money received by Defendant OOO appears to have been paid as office expenses such as the purchase price of goods, and that there was no previous error for Defendant OOOOO.

In full view of the various circumstances such as the Defendant’s appeal age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant ○○ and the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing are without merit.

(c) Defendant *, Yellow * (Public Prosecutor) with respect to *

The Defendants do not oppose the mistake while denying the instant crime. The amount received by the Defendants is not much than 5 million won per person, and the purpose of the Public Official Election Act strictly regulating the contribution act is to prevent the election itself from being posing a risk of congrating the financial resources of the candidates rather than being an opportunity to evaluate the property, knowledge, policies, etc. of the candidates, because the contribution act contributes to creating the foundation of support by the candidates or is highly likely to be associated with the purchase act, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendants in light of the fact that the election itself is to prevent the risk of congrating the financial resources of the candidates.

However, on the other hand, even according to the sentence of the court below against the Defendants, the defendants were unable to maintain the current status of the Si Council member; the defendants, who were going to the election of the Si Council member, are affiliated to the same Democratic Party * the market candidate *** the market candidate ** because the defendants' crime of this case does not have a significant influence on the actual election; *** * the defendants' failure to commit the crime of this case in this election. In full view of various sentencing conditions in the records, including the defendants' age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and circumstances after committing the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

D. Defendant sexuality* (Defendant sexuality*** and Prosecutor) Defendant sexuality** The amount received by the Defendant while denying the instant crime * the amount received by the Defendant is not stated as KRW 5 million, and the purpose of the Public Official Election Act strictly regulating the contribution act is to prevent the election itself from being likely to contribute to the formation of the candidate’s support base or to associated with the purchase act because it is highly likely that the contribution act would be associated with the candidate’s personal property, knowledge, and policy, rather than being an opportunity to evaluate the candidate’s personal property, knowledge, and policy.

However, on the other hand, Defendant sex** even according to the original sentence against Defendant ** even according to the original sentence against Defendant ** The current Do Council member status has been difficult to maintain, Defendant sex* who was going out of the election of Do Council members* the same democratic party *** * the market candidate *** the money provided as the degree of encouragement, and Defendant sex*** the crime of this case was not considerably affected by the actual election, and the other favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, intelligence and environment, etc.* * When comprehensively considering the various kinds of sentencing as shown in the record, it is appropriate and not recognized that the sentence of the original court is too heavy or unreasonable.

Defendant * The argument of the Defendant * The argument of the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor is without merit.

5. Conclusion

A. Defendant Error, this part of this case**, sulfur*, *, Ma*, * Park, Park**'s appeal and prosecutor's appeal and ○○○, this part of this case**, sulfur*, *, sex***, Park** in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there are no grounds for appeal as to the above. However, under Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure ex officio, Defendant 5, 6 acts under Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there are no grounds for appeal as to the above. However, under Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Defendant **, sulfur**, sex**, the pertinent legal column for the crime against gambling & & & & & & respectively, is corrected to "the point of receipt of contribution" and corrected to "Article 257 (2) and Article 116 of the Public Official Election Act".

B. Since the prosecutor’s appeal on the acquittal portion of Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant’s non-guilty part (including Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant *, Defendant *, Defendant * *’s contribution act) and the acquittal portion of Defendant Defendant’s Defendant’s Y○○○’s reasons (the fact of contribution act to Defendant Defendant **) is well-grounded, this part of Defendant’s conviction should be found guilty. Meanwhile, this part of Defendant’s total amount, Y○’s crime, and the remainder of the facts of Defendant’s lawful conviction are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed on the remainder of the facts of Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Song and Y○○○ cannot be entirely maintained. Accordingly, this part of the judgment of the lower court and the Prosecutor’s appeal on unreasonable sentencing is reversed pursuant to

C. Since the appeal by the Defendant Doh, O00 is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

D. The part of the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, after pleading, since the appeal by the prosecutor against the above Defendants is well-grounded.

Criminal facts

O*** was born on June 2, 2010 ** on June 2, 2010 * was killed in a market election. The total amount of the defendant, the x○, the Do○○, and the O was elected *** the election of a member *** the election of a member *** the defendant Park *** * was elected on June 2, 2010 *** * was elected on June 2, 2010 ** the election of a member.

O** was conducted on June 2, 2010 * On June 2, 2010 * When the election day comes to close, * was willing to offer money and valuables to the effect that, with the knowledge of the unfavorable return to the election price, the Defendant’s total number, ○○ and the candidates of the City Council members of the local election would request support.

1. Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant 1 was unable to make, or had to make, a contribution to the election for the candidate or the political party to which he belongs, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 heard from ** to provide a certain amount of money to the candidates of the City/Do Council members, * for the election of *** to provide money and valuables to the candidates of the City/Do Council members with money kept in this case.

A. On May 27, 2010: (a) around 19:20 on May 27, 2010, Defendant Jong-○, Inc., cut a white bag containing a white bag containing KRW 5 million (50,000 KRW 100,00 KRW 100) while speaking for a gold bag before the elevator at the entrance of the election office** Defendant Go-○, who was in the 7th floor, around the elevator at the entrance of the election office** ** the market head, who was in the head of the Si, was in the head of the Gu.* * The market head, who was in the head of the Si, was in the head of the Gu, was in the head of the Gu.

As a result, Defendant O** in collusion with ***** traffic in relation to market election*

* Contributions have been made to *

B. On May 27, 2010: (a) around 19:40 on May 27, 2010, Defendant 50 million won in cash (50,000 Won**** the lecture of Defendant on the second floor of the building*** the lecture of Defendant in the election office of the 2nd floor of the building*** the off market has been sent to the off market. The off market means that the off market is high, and the off market is high, with a white bag containing cash of KRW 5 million (50,000,000).

As a result, the defendant's species in collusion with ******** in relation to the market election* in relation to the act of contribution to ** in relation to the market election.

C. On May 27, 2010: 20 : 00 ambling time** in the election office* Defendant’s milk** in the election office of * “The market is hot, hot, and the cash amounting to KRW 2 million (200, KRW 1000, KRW 1000, KRW 100, KRW 1000, KRW 1000,000, KRW 3 million in total.

As a result, the total amount of the defendant ** in collusion with ***** in relation to the market election* in relation to the act of contribution to ** in relation to the market election.

D. On May 27, 2010: 20: 30 on May 27, 2010, Defendant Song-gu ** * * its own stopping on the front road of a bathing beach** * * *** * * * 1,00,00 won in cash (50,000 won) from Lee Dong-dong’s car, “The market is frighten with this encouragement,” and 5 million won in cash (100,000 won).

As a result, the defendant's species in collusion with ******* in relation to the market election* in this* in relation to the contribution act to *.

E. On May 29, 2010: (a) around 30: 13, 2010, the Defendant’s total x***** in the small room inside the restaurant **** in cash, referring to “the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the cat of the market,” and 5 million won in cash (50,000 won cat of 100 won).

As a result, the defendant's species in collusion with *** *** * * Ma in relation to market elections* * make contributions to *.

2. The defendant's outline;

(a) Encouragement for purchase and understanding;

Except where allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits are provided pursuant to the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person shall provide or express his/her intention to provide money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with the election campaign, or present his/her intention to provide them, or may not promise, instruct, recommend, arrange, demand, or receive them.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 had been provided with KRW 30 million to the effect that Defendant 1 served * * * * for the purpose of providing personal service, such as customer entertainment expenses, around May 23, 2010 ********* * * through Defendant Defendant Defendant Party’s transmission in the rear side of the apartment.

As a result, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from * in relation to election campaign.

(b) Contributions;

Although anyone is unable to make, or have to make, a contribution to an election for a candidate or a political party to which he belongs, he/she held that he/she will give a certain amount of money from **** from Do Council members around May 28, 2010, *** he/she has received money from Do Council members ** he/she has expressed his/her intent to offer money to the candidates for the election of Do Council members on May 29, 2010, * (1) Defendant 1 had expressed his/her intention to give money to the candidates for the election of Do Council members * Suh City *** * * in the election office of * Defendant this * in this case 100,000 won, while he/she stated in cash 5 million won (500,000 won, 100 won).

As a result, Defendant 1 conspireds with ******* in relation to the market election* Defendant * made a contribution act to * in relation to the market election.

(2) On May 29, 2010: around 20: 15:0 on May 29, 2010, Defendant Red Cross** * * * * * * * * * 100,00 a white bag containing Defendant yellow Cross ** * * * 5 million in cash while speaking as “the market is being delivered to the market owner.”

As a result, Defendant 1 conspireds with ****** * * Defendant 1 made contributions to * * with respect to the market election.

③ The Defendant 1, around May 29, 2010, caused one bag containing KRW 5 million in cash (No. 50,000, KRW 100) from the toilets of the election office** * * * * * * * * 100,00.

As a result, Defendant 1 conspireds with ******* * Defendant sex* * made a contribution to * in relation to the election of Chapter *.

(4) On May 29, 2010: around 10: 19:0, Defendant 1 YY *** Defendant Park Hamb, who is standing on the road for post office building ** Defendant Park Park ** through Defendant Park *** * * Hamb, who works as the President of the Omban City, called “the President of the Omban City” * 500,000 won in cash (No 50,000 won).

As a result, Defendant 1 conspired with ** * * * * Defendant Park Park * - made contributions to the market election.

(5) On May 29, 2010: 30 on May 29:30, 2010, Defendant 1 found one bag containing KRW 5 million in cash (50,000, KRW 100, KRW 500, KRW 100, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 500, KRW 100) on the part of Defendant 1, 200.

As a result, Defendant 1 made contributions in collusion with ****** * * in relation to the market election.

3. Defendant Cow

No one shall receive contributions from, or solicit or request any person, such as a candidate, to make contributions, with respect to an election, from a third party.

On May 27, 2010, Defendant Do○○ was provided with cash amounting to KRW 30 million in terms of vehicle maintenance expenses, activity expenses, etc. * KRW 30 million in relation to the election campaign * Do○○ received KRW 30,000 from KRW 30,00 in relation to the election campaign ** in the election office *** in accordance with the direction of *** in Kim Kim** in accordance with the direction of * in relation to the election campaign. Accordingly, Defendant Do○○ received KRW 30,000 from ** in relation to the election campaign.

4. Defendant 00

No one shall receive contributions from, or solicit or request any person, such as a candidate, to make contributions, with respect to an election, from a third party.

On May 27, 2010, Defendant 100 was provided with KRW 30,00 (10,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 100, KRW 6,000) for cash as an election fund from May 28, 2010, KRW ******, in a private village in an apartment parking lot **** through Kim Jong-, in receipt of instructions from ** KRW 30,000, KRW 100, KRW 6,00) for an election fund. On May 28, 2010 ******** ** in a passenger parking lot adjacent to an apartment apartment 704-dong 704, an apartment * through Kim-dong * * 200,00 won for cash as an election fund * 100,000 won

As a result, Defendant 00 was donated KRW 50 million in total from** in relation to market elections.

5. Defendant Go* No one may receive, solicit, or demand contributions from a person, such as a candidate, from whom a contribution act is restricted with respect to an election, or receive contributions from a third party.

Defendant 1* * On May 27, 2010: 19: 20 on drinking time**** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * the head of the Si, who was called from the elevator before the entrance of the elevator at his election office on the seventh floor, was fluencing from the Defendant’s species before the entrance, and the market sand was fluencing with the highest amount of money, and received a white envelope containing KRW 5 million (50,000, KRW 100) in cash.

As a result, Defendant Go** * * * * * Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor * Professor Doctrine of Defendant with respect to the election of the leisure market.

The defendant river** * On May 27, 2010: 40, Kamh City*********** the total of the defendant's offices in one's election on the second floor of the building* * the defendant's office in the second floor of the building. The defendant river* * the white bag containing 5 million won in cash (50,000 won, 100 won).

As a result, Defendant river** O* in respect of the election of the leisure market** in respect of the summary of evidence donated by * in respect of the election of the leisure market

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The original judgment's statement in the court below by Defendant species

1. Defendant high *, strong * each court's legal statement in *

1. this* A copy of each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution against *

1. Current*, fixed * Copy of each protocol of suspect examination of prosecution against A* A

1. Details of total mobile calls;

[Defendant 1. Part of the lower court’s oral statement by Defendant 1

1. Defendant Park * Defendant's legal statement in the original instance*

1. The defendant this**, sulfur*, sex* part of the original judgment* the legal statement of each court below *

1. Witness * the original legal statement of * the original court

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of suspect examination against the defendant 1, 00

1. Civil* A copy of an interrogation protocol of the prosecution against the suspect*

1. This* The police statement of this*

1. A report on investigation (Analysis of telephone details);

【Defendant Co., Ltd】

1. Part of the court below's oral statement by Defendant U.S.

1. Prosecutor's office and police suspect interrogation protocol regarding Defendant friendship;

1. Kim* The police statement of the police against *

[Defendant 00]

1. The defendant O0's partial statement in the original court

1. Prosecutors' office and police suspect interrogation protocol concerning guns;

1. Kim*, O* Each police protocol of statement about A*

1. A report on investigation (Analysis of telephone details);

[Defendant Goh**]

1. Defendant Goh* Part of the original trial court's oral statement

1. The original judgment and the legal statement of the trial court rendered by the witness ○○;

1. Defendant high * Prosecutor’s and police interrogation protocol of the police officer’s suspect (including the whole part of the interrogation)

1. Statement of the police branch concerning its species;

1. A report on investigation (Analysis of telephone details);

1. Photographs of the actual condition survey;

[Defendant lecture**]

1. Defendant lecture* Part of the original trial court's oral statement

1. The original judgment and the legal statement of the party branch of the witness;

1. Defendant lecture* Prosecution's Office and Police suspect interrogation protocol (including the whole part of the interrogation) against Defendant 5

1. Statement of the police officer to ○○;

1. A report on investigation (Analysis of telephone details);

1. Photographs of the actual condition survey;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant Class: Articles 257(1)1 and 115 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30(1)5 and 4 of the Criminal Act, Article 230(1)5 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the receipt of money and valuables related to election campaign, choice of imprisonment), Articles 257(1)1 and 115 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of each contribution act and each choice of each imprisonment);

○ Defendant Co-Defendant: Articles 230(1)5 and 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the receipt of money and valuables relating to election campaign; the choice of imprisonment);

Pursuant to Article 257(2) and Article 116(2) of the Public Official Election Act (the receipt of donations, the choice of each fine) 1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant Song○, ○○, ○○, and 00)

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50 (Article 10) of each Criminal Code (Article 37) (Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Article 10 of the Public Official Election Act) (Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Code has the largest criminal status * an increase in punishment for the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to a contribution act to the Government * Aggravated punishment for the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the receipt of contribution from May 27, 2010).

1. Attraction of a workhouse (defendant *, demoted**)

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant sent to ○○, ○○, friendly, 00);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Social service order (the total number of defendants, size*, rain, 00);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Additional collection:

○ Defendant 1: The proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act, respectively.

○○ Defendant 00, high level*, lecture*: Reasons for sentencing in the proviso of Article 257(4) of the Public Official Election Act

1. Defendant 1: (a) in collusion with Defendant 2: (b) the nature of the crime by providing money and valuables to the candidates for City/Do council members for the election of the leisure market that came out as a candidate; and (b) the influence on the electors of the instant contribution act in light of the fact that the relevant crime is significant; and (c) the awareness and influence of the candidates for City/Do council members, etc., cannot be disregarded. The purpose of strictly regulating the contribution act by the Public Official Election Act is to strictly regulate the contribution act by contributing to the formation of the foundation for support of the candidate; (d) it is highly likely that the act of contribution would be associated with the act of purchase; and (e) it is necessary to strictly punish the election itself in light of the fact that the election would be likely to lead to the candidate’s financial ability in the process of maintaining the candidate’s financial ability, rather than to be an opportunity

On the other hand, there are more favorable circumstances, such as that Defendant 1 was involved in the instant crime under the request of * * and middle school * * the participation in the instant crime under the request of *, Defendant Song○ does not have any property benefits by relating to the instant crime, and Defendant 3 did not have the same criminal record.

In addition, in full view of various circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, the punishment of the defendant shall be determined as ordered.

2. Defendant 1: (a) in collusion with Defendant 1***, and (b) provided money and valuables to the candidates of City/Do Council members for the election of a credit market that has been launched as a candidate; (c) in consideration of the fact that there is significant nature of the crime by giving and receiving KRW 30 million in relation to the election campaign from ** the fact that the influence on the electors of the contribution act of this case cannot be disregarded; and (d) the purpose of the Public Official Election Act strictly regulating the contribution act is to contribute to the formation of the foundation for support of the candidate or to purchase, and if the election is allowed, it is necessary to punish the election itself in light of the fact that there is a risk of breaking the candidate’s financial ability through the process of evaluating the candidate’s property, knowledge, policy, etc.

On the other hand, there are more favorable circumstances, such as that Defendant 1 was involved in the crime of this case upon request of ** in her friendly relationship, Defendant 1 was involved in the crime of this case, Defendant 1 did not have the same criminal record, Defendant 1 had family members to support her, Defendant 1 did not engage in the activities related to the election again, and Defendant 1 did not engage in the activities related to the election again.

In full view of various circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment is determined as ordered against the defendant 1.

3. The Defendants’ crime of this case**, lecture** The Defendants’ crime of this case was committed at the active request of the side*** The Defendants, the Defendants, who were going to the election of Si Council members, would have understood the money and valuables provided * as the nature of encouragement and received it. The Defendants’ crime of this case did not have a significant influence on the actual election ** the fact that the Defendants got out of this election *.

However, on the other hand, the defendants' rejection of the crime in this case and did not reflect the wrongs, the amount received by the defendants is not more than five million won per person, and the purpose of the Public Official Election Act strictly regulating the act of contribution is to prevent the risk of confiscing the candidate's financial power by the process of raising the candidate's financial power rather than being an opportunity to evaluate the candidate's property, knowledge, policies, etc., if the act of contribution contributes to the formation of the foundation of support or it is highly likely that the act of contribution would be associated with the purchase, and if the act of contribution would be allowed, it is to prevent it. Criminal trials against election crimes are imposed on the proper sentence according to the formation of crime and the degree of its illegality. Thus, the court is bound to impose punishment corresponding to the acts of the defendants that are found guilty.

In full view of the various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and circumstances after the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records shall be determined as ordered against the defendants.

Judge Lee Chang-chul

Judge Choi Chang-hoon

Judges Lee Dong-soo