2015Gohap121(Separation), Fraud, Violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act

A

Choi Ho-young (prosecution), Shin Ho-ho (Public trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney C

Law Firm D, Attorney E

April 8, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months and by a fine of up to 5,00,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a candidate for the election of the superintendent of the Office of Education in F. 2, 2010, which was implemented on June 2, 2010, and G is a person who was in the fourth degree of relationship with the defendant and was in charge of accounting in the election office of the

1. Violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act and fraud related to printing expenses;

On June 2, 2010, the Defendant and G received a contract and tax invoice from the printing company with respect to the printing expenses related to the election of the Office of Education in F City, which were implemented on June 2, 2010, with the amount lower than the actual contract amount, and the said company paid only the printing expenses under the actual contract. The election commission offered to receive the preservation of election expenses according to the amount less than the amount less than the amount less than the amount less than the amount less than the amount less than the actual contract.

A. In the case of receiving and disbursing election expenses in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act with regard to false entry of the accused and G documents, the receipts and other evidential documents shall not be falsely entered or altered.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and G find 00.0 billion won as 'J' office on May 31, 2010, and request the above 00.0 billion won for printing of official gazettes, pledges, etc., and the Defendant set up 100 million won for the contract amount of 0.0 billion won for the above 0-mentioned documents, such as tax contract, 00 million won for return to G. The Defendant and G received 100 million won for the above 10.5 billion won for the above 0-mentioned documents, 00 won for the above 10.5 billion won for the above 0-mentioned documents, 000 won for the election campaign, 10.00 won for the above 10.5 billion won for the above 0-mentioned documents, 100 million won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for 10,000 won for each of 0.5 won for the above 201.0

(b) Where any accountant in charge of accounting in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act makes an accounting report concerning election expenses with regard to false entry by a defendant, such accounting report shall not be falsely entered, counterfeited, forged, altered, or omitted without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspired with G 1 and 20.1 billion won for 2.5 billion won for the purpose of printing and 2.5 billion won for the election of F 10.2 on June 2, 2010, and submitted an accounting report with G 1 and 20.1 billion won for the purpose of 2.5 billion won for each of the above 10.2 billion won for the purpose of submitting an accounting report with G 1 and 1.5 billion won for the election expenses of the Defendant who is a candidate for the superintendent of the Office of Education on June 28, 2010, and submitted an accounting report with G 1 and 1.5 billion won for the purpose of 2.5 billion won for the purpose of 1.5 billion won for each of the above 2.5 billion won for the purpose of submitting an accounting report, 1.5 billion won for the election expenses, 1.5 billion won for the bill, 205 won for each of the above 10.5 billion won for the expenditure.

C. The Defendant and G fraud

Defendant and G were able to receive election expenses preservation using documentary evidence stating the amount of printing printed as described in the above 1-A, as described in the above 1-A, and at the F. Si Election Commission office located in K around June 14, 2010, G submitted a written estimate, tax invoice, contract, etc. as stated in the above 1-A, stating that the actual printing cost was KRW 70 million, but the actual printing cost was KRW 121 million, and the Defendant received an excessive amount of KRW 82,720,424,724 from the official in charge of the election commission on July 30, 2010, in collusion with G and the Defendant received an excessive amount of KRW 12,720,424 from the public official in charge of the election commission in its name as the preservation cost for printing expenses. Accordingly, the Defendant in collusion with G and the above amount of KRW 12,720,424 as a public official in the name of the election commission.

by deceiving the victim, 12,720,424 won was acquired from the Republic of Korea.

2. Violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act and fraud related to the expenses for placards;

Defendant and G issued a contract and tax invoice with respect to the expenses for bannering in relation to the election of the Office of Education on June 2, 2010, which was implemented on June 2, 2010, to a banner company as an amount less than the actual contract price, and the said company received a refund of the difference excessively appropriated as the amount of the said tax invoice issued, and the election commission at the City/Do election commission submitted evidentiary documents, such as a false tax invoice, estimate, and contract, stating the amount so over, and received as the amount of the election expenses.

A. In the case of receiving and disbursing election expenses in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act with regard to the false entry of the accused into evidential documents, the receipts and other evidential documents shall not be falsely entered or altered.

The Defendant, in collusion with G’s accountant in charge, agreed to install KRW 8,00 per square meter of the trade name “L” in M and election campaign office, and signed a contract for the production and installation of banner at KRW 75,00,000 per 7,000, KRW 600, KRW 700, KRW 67,000 per square meter of the above M and KRW 460,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 167,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 60,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 165,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 67,000, KRW 67,00,000, KRW 67,00,000, KRW 167,07,00.

(b) Where any accountant in charge of accounting in violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act makes an accounting report concerning election expenses with regard to false entry by a defendant, such accounting report shall not be falsely entered, counterfeited, forged, altered, or omitted without justifiable grounds.

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspired with G, a person in charge of accounting, who is in charge of making an accounting report on the F-si Office of Education in June 2, 2010, with the F-si Office of Education (hereinafter “F-si Office of Education”) to cover the expenses for bannering, and the fact is not a total of KRW 45,656,600, as described in the foregoing 2-A, but a total of KRW 22,345,983, as described in the foregoing 2-B, submitted an accounting report, around June 28, 2010, G submitted to the election commission of F-si on May 27, 2010, stating that “the revenue and expenditure report on the political fund” described in the above 1-B as the revenue and expenditure report, which was written as KRW 45,656,60,600, and L, and attaching a letter of estimate, tax invoice 3,1, and one of the documents evidencing this.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with G to prepare and submit an accounting report as if 45,656,600 won was actually paid, and made a false statement in the accounting report on election expenses, regardless of the fact that the amount paid as the production and installation cost of banner was 22,345,983 won in total without justifiable grounds.

Defendant and G used documentary evidence indicating the price for banners as indicated in the above 2-A, in order to receive election expenses, as indicated in the above 2-2-A, and at the F-si Election Commission office located in K around June 14, 2010, G received KRW 22,345,983 in total, the cost of manufacturing and installing banners (= KRW 17,737,192 + KRW 4,608,791 in total, including the cost of installing banner + KRW 4,608,61), despite the fact that G received KRW 23,310,617 in total for 72 placards as indicated in the attached list of crimes, and received KRW 45,60 in total,60 in total (= KRW 41,047,809 + KRW 4,608,708,799) from the election commission office, and received KRW 165,75,000,000,00 from Defendant 163.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with G, and thereby, a public official of the F.F. Election Commission

by deceiving the victim, 13,513,753 won was acquired from the Republic of Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by a witness I in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement of witness 0 in the fourth trial record;

1. The statements of the witness M in the fifth and sixth trial records;

1. The witness's statement stated in the sixth trial records;

1. Statements made by witnesses Q in the seventh trial records;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A copy of the protocol of examination of suspect concerning G in the third and sixth instances;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement against I,O, M, R, and S;

1. Each written statement in I, Q, M, and P;

1. Copy of the protocol of suspect examination (2010 type No. 26893), statement of statement No. 2010 (tentative name), 1. Investigation report [the details of transactions betweenG and I], investigation report [Attachment of the contract of J and II], investigation report (Attachment of the judgment on the violation of the Political Funds Act of the Superintendent of the Office of Education on June 2, 2010), investigation report (Attachment of the judgment on the violation of the Political Funds Act of M), investigation report (Attachment of J distance guidance), investigation report (2010) (Attachment of data such as election report related to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education), investigation report (the details of delivery of the Office of Education related to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education and the corporate information data attached to LF Office operated by M related to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education), investigation report (the location of office of candidate office and banner photo attached), investigation report (the results of execution of a communication warrant), investigation report (the results of the investigation report on May 28, 2010 and attachment of A election report).

1. Dispatching materials related to the request for data on calculation of expenses for preserving printing expenses prescribed in 2010 internal investigation reports (Attachment of evidentiary materials) No. 2010 internal investigation and investigation reports (Attachment of printed prices and A candidate work logs), 2010 internal investigation reports (Attachment of evidentiary materials), 2010 internal investigation reports (Attachment of evidentiary materials), 2010 internal investigation records No. 1877, 2010 internal investigation records No. 1877, 2010, 2010-type investigation reports (Attachment of sales status), 2010-type investigation reports (Attachment of evidentiary materials), 35878 investigation reports (the details of accounts deposited and withdrawn for A candidate title), 2010-type investigation reports (related to claims for expenses for printing banner, etc.), 2010-type investigation reports and investigation reports No. 35878, Jul. 38, 208-type investigation records (Comparison of evidence).

1. Details remitted to the G account transactions; list of goods contracts (Evidence Nos. 31); judgment; distance map; overall statement of revenue and expenditure of supporters’ associations; election expense preservation claim (No. 14, 2010); political fund revenue and expenditure report (No. 28, 2010); product contract status; current status of service contract (Evidence List No. 109; No. 109); L company information; L location and construction contract status; V company information; V company status information; location and photograph of the building installed an election banner included in the estimate on April 17, 2010; name of the building; name of the building; name of the association; name of the association; name of the association; name of the association; name of the association; name of the bank; name of the bank; name of the bank; name of the No. 10635, May 22, 2010; name of the account No. 1315, No. 130, Agricultural Bank Co. 201, Ltd. 320, Agricultural Bank (No. 2010.C. Y) account No.3.

1. Detailed statement of request for preservation (No. 242 and 279), each detailed statement of request for preservation (Evidence List No. 215, 217), such as a copy of the passbook, each estimate (Evidence List No. 215, 217), election printing contract, written request (Evidence List No. 218), printing cost statement, tax invoice, business registration certificate, ordinary transaction price, etc., and each detailed statement of request for preservation (Evidence No. 242 and 279), sales status, detailed statement of request

Application of Statutes

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

Article 50 of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 49(1) and (2)6 of the Political Funds Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact of violating the Local Education Autonomy Act due to false entries in evidential documents and accounting reports, the selection of fines), Articles 347(1) and 30 of each Criminal Act (Fraud point and choice of imprisonment)

1. Article 49(1) of the Local Education Autonomy Act, Article 18(3) and 18(1)3 of the Public Official Election Act (the punishment for a violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act and the punishment for each crime of fraud shall be imposed separately);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in the case of each fraud, the punishment specified in paragraph (3) of Article 2 of the Judgment with the heavier penalty for the crime of fraud, and each crime of violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, the penalty and punishment for each crime of violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, each concurrent penalty for each crime of violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act specified in paragraph (2) of Article 1

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant entered false amounts in documentary evidence and accounting report (hereinafter referred to as "written evidence, etc.") with regard to the cost of printing and banner differently from the actual amount, and made use of such false amounts as election expenses which are more than the amount actually paid by the victim from the Republic of Korea, and obtained by defrauding the difference equivalent to the difference. In addition, there is no possibility that such act was conspired with G.

2. Determination

(a) Whether the defendant, in collusion with G, makes a false statement on documentary evidence, etc. in relation to printing expenses, and then acquires the excessive election expenses calculated using it and the actual election expenses by fraud;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is reliable in the statement that the Defendant received a request from the Defendant to correct the amount of a printing contract in documentary evidence, etc., and when examining the status and role of the Defendant in the election of the superintendent of education of this case, the relationship between the Defendant and G, and other relevant evidence, the Defendant conspired with G to make a false entry in documentary evidence in the amount that is unfasible to the actual amount in relation to the printing cost, and the fact that the Defendant acquired money equivalent to the difference by receiving excessive preservation for election expenses by receiving the excessive preservation.

① From June 2, 2010 to June 2, 2010, the representative of 'J' who entered into a printing contract with the defendant with regard to the election of the Superintendent of the Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "election of this case") was examined as to this part of the facts charged at around 2010, but at the same time, the statement was made to the effect that "in the event of being suspected of being subject to a disposition by the Prosecutor's Office, the printing cost was not excessive." However, at that time, the false statement was made by the Prosecutor's Office of Education from July 24, 2014 to this Court, and the following was consistently made from the Prosecutor's Office's investigation to this Court. Around May 2, 2010, the defendant was found to be ‘J'. At that time, the defendant received from the office ’s office ’s "after the end of the printing cost, the amount of the tax invoice would be less than 00 million won or less, and the defendant's statement was presented to G Office of education.

C. As a result, P, an employee of 'J', who is an employee of the 'J', has prepared a written request dated May 3, 2010, written a written estimate of May 6, 2010, and written a written request dated May 25, 2010, respectively, and I received KRW 70 million first presented by the Defendant as printing cost, but at the tax invoice, the tax invoice, the said quotation, etc. were written as KRW 110 million and value-added tax KRW 121,00,000,000,000 as printing cost. Since then, I again asked the Defendant as to whether there was a printing cost from the Defendant, including a related person of the Election Commission, and the neighboring persons, who received the printing cost from 'the Defendant', and then I will return it to 10,000,000 won.

E. From April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013, G transferred KRW 51 million to one account from April 14, 2012 to one account, and two years have passed since the end of the instant election, G transferred KRW 29 million to 30,000,000. From June 20, 2012 to May 28, 2013, G again transferred KRW 1,000 to 30 (the representative in the name of AC in which G actually operated)’s account and returned KRW 22,00,000 to G, and 1,000 to 20,000,000 from the end of 20,000 to the end of 20,000,000. PI did not seem to have been forced to make a false statement to G at the end of 20,000 to the end of 14,00,000.

② At the time of the instant election, the head of the Defendant’s performance team and the head of the camp-general affairs were entered from the investigative agency to the instant court with “J” as well as the Defendant and the driver of the vehicle from May 2010. At the same time, the number is two times, and the number is expressed on the first floor of the said factory, and the number is two times, and the Defendant appears to have been expressed. The number is seven thousand and one hundred million won. The above two numbers are recorded in a string and then the Defendant considered that the Defendant was able to attract the Defendant,” so it is consistent with the I’s statement to the effect that the Defendant and the driver agreed to issue the tax invoice by withdrawing the printed amount.

③ Around May 2010, P, who was an employee of the J, testified that the Defendant and G had visited 'J' to discuss about the production of promotional materials. P, around May 2010, stated that there was a fact that the Defendant visited 'J' with G several times thereafter, and that when the Defendant and G visited 'J', they would bring about her own coffee at the time of signing a contract with 'J'. Since the above contents of P are nature and are not found any contradiction, it is judged that there is credibility in the statement. Q, which was an employee of 'J', had a factory and 20th floor output room as the Defendant’s execution cause, followed the Defendant’s interview with 'I and 20th floor,' and the Defendant made a statement that there was credibility of the contract with 'I and 20th floor on July 1, 2010 at the time of signing a contract with 'I and 5th floor on May 20, 2010.'

④ While engaging in printing business for not less than 20 years, I had almost no way to deliver printed matters to the F Office of Education prior to the instant election. There is a circumstance that the Defendant entered into a contract with the F Office of Education from December 29, 2010 to October 17, 2013, including the supply of printed matters, etc. after the Defendant was elected as the Superintendent of the Office of Education, and supplied printed matters. This is the circumstance that “Defendant or G proposed that the actual amount of printing should be set at KRW 70 million,000,000,” while proposing that the Defendant or G would cause the Office of Education to perform its work.

⑤ As above, there is consistency in the contents of the account transaction from the prosecution investigation around July 2014 to the time when the defendant makes a direct statement from this court. Although the prosecution investigation denies the excessive appropriation of printing costs in around 2010, G in the process of the prosecution investigation conducted thereafter, it is difficult to find out that the defendant had no special credibility of the contract at the time of the above office of education by taking into account the following facts: (a) the amount of KRW 51 million from April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013; and (b) the amount of KRW 29 million from that time to May 28, 2013 was transferred to G through an account under U’s name; (c) it is difficult to view that the defendant had no special credibility of the contract at the time of the above office of education by taking into account the circumstances that the defendant had concluded the contract at least 2010 years prior to that time; and (d) it is difficult to see that the defendant had no specific credibility of the contract at the time of the election.

④ The “report on the revenue and expenditure of political funds” submitted by G to the election commission is written as KRW 121 million, KRW 70 million, KRW 51 million, and KRW 51 million, in fact, the printing cost is paid as KRW 70 million, KRW 70 million, and KRW 51 million, and the remainder of KRW 51 million has not been paid to I for the period of the instant election campaign and for about two years thereafter. In addition, these circumstances are supported by the I’s statement that the said KRW 51 million is the printing cost.

In this regard, G argued to the effect that in order to adjust the above KRW 51 million, which is the part not paid at the time of the instant election in the prosecution investigation, G transferred KRW 51 million from one’s account to one’s account after the completion of the instant election.

Meanwhile, according to the account transactions between G and I, G transferred KRW 51 million to G from April 14, 2012 to February 18, 2013. From June 2012 to May 28, 2013, G transferred KRW 29 million to U.S. account in the name of the actual representative of G from June 20, 2012 to May 28, 2013. 1)

① No. 201, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 200, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2010, No. 2006, No. 200, No. 2010, No. 2000, No. 7. 3). 7.

(b) Whether the defendant, in collusion with G, makes a false statement on documentary evidence, etc. in relation to the expenses for banner, and then obtains the excessive election expenses calculated using it and the actual election expenses by fraud;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is recognized that the testimony of M is credibility in accordance with this part of the facts charged, and when examining the status and role of the defendant in the election of the superintendent of education of this case, the relation between the defendant and G, and other relevant evidence, the defendant conspired with G to make a false entry in the amount of unflaged documentary evidence, etc. different from the actual cost of banner, and obtained excessive preservation of election expenses by receiving the money equivalent to the difference.

① At around 2010, the representative M of “L” that the Defendant entered into the production and installation contract for banner was indicted for violating the Political Funds Act in relation to this part of the facts charged, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 2, 2011, on which the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won in the Ulsan District Court (2010 Godan2600). However, M is self-grads that the Defendant made a false statement during the investigation process around 2010, and from October 8, 2014 to this Court, the following content is from the time when he was investigated by the prosecution to this Court:

A consistent statement is consistently made. At the beginning of April 2010, the time of the instant election, the Defendant came to know at a funeral hall of F, and around that time entered into a contract for the production and installation of banner necessary for the instant election with G. At the time, M proposed to manufacture and supply banner at KRW 8,000, a cost per square meter, to G. As the amount would be, G, who completed the delivery of banner from April 12, 2010 to May 25, 2010, demanded M to make a estimate calculated by 21,000 won per square meter (in the case of a distance banner, KRW 12,00 per square meter).

C M delivered written estimates, tax invoices, contracts, etc. calculated at KRW 21,00 per square meter (in the case of a distance banner, KRW 12,00 per square meter) as required by G. On May 27, 2010, M received KRW 45,656,600, which is the estimated amount to be entered in the foreign exchange bank account under the Defendant’s name, from the Defendant around 16:21 on May 27, 2010. Meanwhile, at around 09:04 on the same day, M entered the phrase “as a public supply for the remaining money by telephone” from the Defendant at around 09:04 on the same day. Around May 28, 2010, on the following day, M sought the Defendant’s pro-friendly Sa and sent money to the account, and on the account number in the name of the Defendant, M sent money to the account. Around 147:147 on the same day.

21,228,800 won, which is the difference between the amount stated in the written estimate (45,656,600 won) and the actual amount to be supplied (24,427,800 won), was transferred to the account in the name of the bank.

The reason why M&C consistently stated that “The defendant was transferred KRW 21,28,80 to an account under the name of E, which is known by S around May 28, 2010, in the course of being investigated as a violation of the Political Funds Act.” The reason why M made such statement at the time was received from the first police officer of early August 2010, who was on two or three days before the prosecutor’s investigation, to give money to S. The reason why M was asked from the first police officer of early 2 or 3 days before the above prosecutor’s office to make a statement was that it was difficult to conclude a contract with the Office of Education to ensure that the defendant was not subject to a fine by the superintendent of the Office of Education on September 20, 2010, and that it was difficult to conclude a contract with the Office of Education for the last time after receiving a statement from the defendant to the Office of Education to the effect that M&C would not have been subject to a lot of recommendations from the Office of Education.”

② The sales books of this case contain 45,656,60 won which are transferred from the defendant, not indicated as the price for banner, but 21,228,800 won which is paid by M from such amount to S, and 45,656,600 won which is equivalent to the value-added tax, 25,379,400 won (- 21,228,800 won + 4,1500 won + 4,600 won which is above 20,27,000 won which is below 20,000 won which is above 60,6064, 605, 605, 606, 605, 606, 206, 705, 606, 605, 606, 706, 606, 606, 706, 606, 700.

③ In addition, around 09:04 on May 27, 2010, M made a telephone call to the Defendant for about 20 minutes and 20 minutes, the Defendant stated to the effect that, before remitting the difference of KRW 21,228,800 on May 28, 2010, M calls to the effect that, “L” office’s location of “L” office was expressed by the Defendant.

④ According to the result of the inquiry into the contents of the calls between M, the Defendant, S, and G, the fact that around May 27, 2010: (a) around 09:04: (b) around 20 seconds called by the Defendant on May 27, 2010; (c) around 16:16, immediately before the date when M received the price of supplied goods from the Defendant; (d) approximately 13 seconds called by M and G; (e) around 16:24 on the same day, M sent text messages to G; (e) M transferred KRW 21,228,800 to the account in the name of E; and (e) M transferred KRW 21:47 on May 28, 2015; (e) around 13:57 on the same day; and (e) around 13:57 on the same day; and (e) on the same day, around 14:30 on the same day, 14:5).

⑤ As above, M&M’s statement is consistent with its contents from the prosecution investigation around October 2014 to the time when the defendant makes a statement directly from this court. It is difficult to find out circumstances to reverse the statement differently from 2010. The public sales books prepared by the election management businessM are not 45,656,600 won, but 24,427,600 won (i.e., sales amount of KRW 20,277,000 + tax amount of KRW 4,150,60) as well as the difference between the sales amount and the tax amount. From around May 27, 2010 and May 28, 2010, it is also difficult to find out the difference between the amount of 20 years M&M’s statement and the amount of 20 years’ transfer money under the name of 20 days’ request for a return of money from the 20th public prosecutor’s office, 605,606.

④ At this court, S stated that the above KRW 21 million was borrowed from M. However, as seen earlier, S stated in the prosecutorial investigation conducted in 2014 that S was returned KRW 21 million with the difference, but this court stated that the above statement was not consistent, such as the reversal of the statement, and M and S did not have any consistency in the statement. There was no agreement between M and S on the loan certificate or the due date for payment and interest, and M did not demand or demand payment. Since M did not demand or demand payment of the above amount, M prepared money to return to S up to KRW 21,28,80 with the already calculated cost until the payment of banner was made, and transferred money to 100 won. In light of the fact that the above M’s behavior appears to have been a normal act of lending money, M and S were merely a loan to 100 won with the first loan of KRW 21,28,000,0000,000 from May 28, 2010.

7) On May 31, 2010, S was transferred KRW 21,228,800 to an account in the name of AE, and around June 1, 2010, S withdrawn KRW 20 million from money at the NAG branch and AH branch located near the election office. The above money was transferred through the account in the name of S, and most of it were withdrawn in cash within a short period. In addition, in light of the fact that: (a) around June 1, 2010, S was tried to conceal the place of use of the money paid by S.; (b) as stated above, in the process of undergoing the prosecutorial investigation in 2014, the remittance and withdrawal details of the sofed plastic banner were sent to S, with the difference of the sofed banner, and (c) the difference was that S was given to S, with respect to the instant election, at the expense of S, and (d) the difference was persuasive.

④ Even if the Defendant, not M, did not directly consult on the production unit price of banner with G, the Defendant appears to be unable to make the Defendant a horse before remitting the delivery amount of banner to M, if the Defendant did not receive a report on the specific amount of banner supply, etc. from G, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have exercised the final right to make a decision regarding the selection of each production company in the instant election, the disbursement of election expenses, etc.; and (b) as seen earlier, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant received a report on the relevant contents from G and obtained a false statement on documentary evidence, etc. by excessively compensating for the difference in election expenses using false documentary evidence, etc.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment for a month to 15 years, and fine of 50,000 won to 30 million won;

2. Basic crimes and concurrent crimes under subparagraph 1: Each fraud;

[Extent of Recommendation] General Frauds No. 1 (less than KRW 100 million)

【Special Convicted Person】

○ Scope of the recommended punishment revised according to the guidelines for handling multiple crimes: Six months to two years (six months of imprisonment, which is the lower limit of the basic crime, and the upper limit shall be followed by one year and six months of imprisonment, which is the upper limit of the basic crime, plus nine months of imprisonment, which is 1/2 of one year and six months of the upper limit of the first concurrent crime, set by two years and three months of imprisonment).

3. According to the sentence decision, the crime of this case is highly poor in that the defendant, who was a candidate for the superintendent of education, who was in charge of F's education and arts, proposed supply, etc. related to the Office of Education in the future to secure individuals' honor while leading the defendant to the candidate for the office of education who is in charge of F's education and arts, stated falsely the amount of money, such as supporting documents, etc. for the preservation of election expenses, and thereby has been preserved for excessive election expenses from the Republic of Korea by the victim. The defendant, who was a candidate for the office of education, who was a senior public official in charge of election, abused the purpose of the public election system, thereby taking advantage of the purpose of the public election system, by taking advantage of the fact that the crime of this case is extremely poor, and the defendant, however, if he denies his own crime and dealt with all the accounting work related to election, and if he was in charge of all the accounting work related to the election, it is inevitable that the defendant is fully

However, there is no particular criminal history except that the defendant has been punished twice by a fine due to the excessive driving of a motor vehicle, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee.

The presiding judge and the new judge;

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judge Lee Jong-soo

1) G has received a return from an account in U in the name of 51 million won, which was remitted to I at the second anniversary of the completion of the instant election in this Court.

In addition to KRW 29 million, the J stated that there was a fact that 9 million won was paid in cash by the Pmp of the Pmp operated by it.

2) A statement that, upon being investigated by the prosecution on October 8, 2014, M calculated the price for the instant banner on the basis of KRW 9,000 per square meter, while M was under investigation by the prosecution on October 8, 2014

Since then M, after being investigated by the prosecution on October 14, 2014, M re-calculated that results in 8,000 won in square meters.

The existing statement was corrected.

3) M means the amount of 45,656,600 won in return - 21,228,800 won in return - 20,277,200 won in return and in sales account books, which is the amount of 20,277,200 won in return

The difference between the sales amount of KRW 20,277,00 and KRW 200 seems to be the amount which is either erroneous or calculated by cutting the sales amount of KRW 100.

The statement was made (see the witness M's statement in the fifth trial record).

4) M is calculated on the basis of KRW 8,000 per square meter, the actual banner unit price of KRW 20,314,720 and the Defendant’s price for banner to M.

The difference between 20,277,200 won and 37,520 won, which is the amount obtained by subtracting the returned amount and the value-added tax from the amount remitted under the name of money shall be calculated in accordance with the calculated number of income.

The statement was made to the effect that it is a witness’s statement (see the witness’s statement in the fifth trial record).

5) According to the call details of the result of the call content analysis, S has sought M's office after S made a telephone in the vicinity of M: AF

It seems that it appears that it is.

6) A letter of guidance on the preservation of election expenses prepared by the F Election Commission is provided to persons visiting the election campaign office or election campaign liaison office within ordinary limits

Expenses for providing foods of Category C are not those subject to preservation (Evidence records 6653).

7) From the accounts under X’s name, a total of KRW 16 million was withdrawn from the Nonghyup Branch on June 1, 2010 to June 9:37:54-9:18, the sum of KRW 16 million was paid in cash, and from the same account.

On June 1, 2010, at the 10:9:58 AH point, KRW 4 million was withdrawn in cash. The NA branch and AH branch offices all of the Defendant’s election office.

The position is now located.

8) We examine only fraud for which sentencing guidelines are set.

9) Evidence records, 6585 pages, 6593 (R, who is a public official of the AI Election Commission, is being investigated by the prosecution on October 16, 2014).

After confirming the original meeting, the defendant stated that he recovered 11,285,140 won of election expenses relating to banner which the defendant received excessive preservation;

See 6600~6603. Internal reports prepared by the F Election Commission around 2011 and around 1.1., the F Election Commission shall have jurisdiction over Ulsan District Court 2010 senior 2600

1,285,140 won for election expenses related to banners, which have been preserved by the defendant on the ground of the judgment of the court below, shall be included

section 32(2).

A person shall be appointed.