2012Gohap413 Violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. Kim 00, outside directors;

Residential Dong-gu Odong-gu Busan

Reference domicile Busan Jin-gu 0 Dong

2. Kim○-○, or non-permanent;

Residential Dong-gu Busan Dong-dong 0 Dong

Busan East-gu 00 Dongdong-dong

3. ○○ or self-business;

dwelling of Busan Fri-gu OOdong

Busan East-gu 00 Dongdong-dong

Route equality (prosecution, public trial), new training, and transfer trial (public trial)

Attorney Yellow-hee (for the defendant Kim ○○)

Attorney Jeong-ho et al. (the national election for defendant Kim Jong-○)

Attorney Ha Han-chul (for the defendant Lee ○-○)

July 17, 2012

Defendant ○○○ was punished by imprisonment for eight months, by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for ten months, respectively.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the defendant Kim○, and for two years to the defendant Lee○○, respectively. 60,000 won from the defendant Kim○, and 1,041,40 won from the defendant Lee○○ shall be collected additionally.

Criminal Facts

Defendant ○○○ was a candidate for the election campaign for the 19th National Assembly member, and Defendant Kim○○ was an election campaign worker from December 13, 201, registered by the said Kim○○ as a preliminary candidate, and was working as such volunteer from December 18, 201, and Defendant 00 was a person who helps the said Kim○○’s election campaign.

Except for the cases of providing allowances, actual expenses, and other benefits under the provisions of the Public Official Election Act, no person may provide money, valuables, or other benefits in connection with election campaign regardless of the pretext, such as allowances, actual expenses, compensation for volunteer service, etc., may not receive them, and may not request the provision of money

1. On March 12, 2012, in the process of an election for giving or receiving money and valuables related to the assembly, there is suspicion that the ○○○○○○ was involved in the corruption related to the regional reconstruction through the media, and Defendant Kim○○ requested that Defendant Kim○○, who is in the position of “the head of the Dong-dong Office” to hold an investigation and promotional conference related to the above corruption in order to concentrate on it in order to win the election, and accordingly requested that Defendant Kim○○, who is working for the above corruption, hold an assembly, “the resolution for fact-finding and investigation promotional conference” in front of Defendant Lee○ and Busan District Public Prosecutor’s Office. On March 12, 2012, Defendant Kim○○ held an assembly to the same effect as 10 persons before the above Public Prosecutor’s office.

Accordingly, on March 13, 2012, Defendant Kim ○○ offered approximately KRW 41,400 meals to Defendant Lee 00 and his first day to Kim ○, Kim ○, and Kim ○○ on the restaurant of ○○○○○○○, Busan, the head of the Dong-gu, Busan. On March 13, 2012, Defendant Kim ○ delivered KRW 1,000,000 to Defendant Lee ○○ through Defendant Kim ○ on March 16, 2012. Accordingly, Defendant Kim ○, and Defendant Kim ○, in collusion, provided money and other benefits to this○○, and Defendant Lee ○ received this.

2. Around September 2011, Defendant Kim ○ issued a payment for the election campaign by Defendant KimO and the payment for the election campaign by Defendant Kim 00, Defendant Kim ○ requested the purport that “I will inform ○○○○○, who was a chief secretary of ○○ High School’s general literary conference, of the fact that I would inform her of the post-issuance to the post-issuance of ○○ High School.”

Accordingly, on March 26, 2012, Defendant Kim ○ requested Defendant Kim ○ on March 26, 2012 to pay KRW 600,000 to Defendant Kim ○, a meeting of 00 high school line and gathering at ○○ (○○ Hop, etc.) located in the Dong-dong, Busan, which was located in the main place of “○○○○” (○○ Hop, etc.).

Accordingly, on March 27, 2012, Defendant Kim ○ paid KRW 600,000 to Defendant Kim ○○ on the election office located in the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

As a result, Defendant Kim○-○ offered money and valuables in relation to the election campaign, and Defendant Kim○-○ offered them.

3. Demand of the defendant for an election campaign by ○○.

On March 12, 2012, the Defendant received the request from Kim ○ and Kim ○○, and on March 12, 2012, at the Busan District Public Prosecutor’s Office, carried out an election campaign by Kim ○, such as holding a meeting of 'Dongdong-dong ○○' in front of the Busan Public Prosecutor’s Office. However, on March 20, 2012, Kim ○ intended to exclude the Defendant from the election campaign worker. The Defendant, who requested the meeting and paid KRW 1 million to himself, had the intention to receive the payment for the election campaign during the election campaign.

On March 22, 2012, the Defendant sent the documents stating 100 million won to Kim○○, i.e., the expenditure statement and KRW 100 million to Kim○○, and on the following day, the Defendant found the above election office and demanded payment according to the expenditure statement sent to Kim00.

However, as Kim○-○ did not comply with this, around March 26, 2012, he again sent a document stating the statement of expenditure and the total amount of KRW 50,000 to KRW 50,000,000. Accordingly, the defendant demanded the provision of money and valuables to the candidate in connection with the election campaign.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's statement on Kim0, Kim00, Kim00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 1. The details of passbook transactions, diskettes and franchise cards, 00 Busan ○○○ Internet carbook printed, 000, 2. A copy of the outdoor assembly report;

1. Results of each mobile phone analysis using KimO and KimOO;

1. Images from CCTV images;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of each investigation report (in addition to related articles, such as photographs of the content of the search of ○○ cell phone, and an albrymism, etc.; 3. 15. Results of analysis of the telephone details and the confirmation of the base station);

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

(a) Defendant Kim ○-○: Articles 230(1)4 and 135 subparag. 3 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money, goods, etc. related to election campaign to ○○○), Article 230(1)4 of the Public Official Election Act, and Article 135 subparag. 3 of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of money, goods, etc. related to election campaign to ○○, and the choice of imprisonment

B. Defendant Kim ○-○: Articles 230(1)4 and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the provision of money, goods, etc. related to election campaigns; the choice of imprisonment); Article 230(1)6 and 4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the receipt of money and goods related to election campaigns; the choice of imprisonment). Defendant Lee ○-○: Article 230(1)6 and 4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 230(3) and 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the receipt of money and goods related to election campaigns; the choice of imprisonment); Article 230(3)4 of the Public Official Election Act; Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act (the provision of money and goods

1. Legal mitigation (Defendant 00) Article 262 (1) 1 of the Public Official Election Act, Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (limited to a crime of violating the Public Official Election Act due to the collection of money, goods, etc. related to election campaigns)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Articles 37(1)2 and 50(in the case of Defendant Kim○, and Kim○○, punishment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, and punishment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act as stated in paragraph (3) of the same Article, the punishment for a violation of the Public Official Election Act as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, whichever is heavier, shall be aggravated) of each Criminal Act.

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following favorable circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Collection (Defendant KimO, Lee O);

The reason for sentencing in the proviso of Article 236 of the Public Official Election Act

1. The crime of this case committed by Defendant Kim 00 is against the purpose of legislation of the Public Official Election Act, which prohibits the number of money and valuables related to election campaign and prevents a fair and clean election culture by allowing the Defendant to hold a meeting unfavorable to other pro rata candidates, providing meals to Lee ○○, or paying one million won in return for this, and paying 60,000 won to Kim ○, a volunteer, as election campaign expenses, in light of the circumstances and frequency of the crime and the amount of money and valuables provided, the crime was not good, and there was a crime at close time on the election day. Except as otherwise provided by the Public Official Election Act, this act goes against the purpose of legislation of the Public Official Election Act, which aims to establish a fair and clean election culture by prohibiting a fair and clean election, and the Defendant has not neglected to deny the crime in the course of investigation, but has had Kim ○ actively make a false statement.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against himself, the first offender, the fact that the defendant has served as a faithful public official for more than 30 years, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence like the order shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case.

2. The Defendant’s crime of this case committed by Defendant Kim○○ in collusion with Kim○○○, in which the Defendant paid KRW 1 million in return for an assembly, and received KRW 600,000 from Kim○○○ in return for an election campaign expense, and the nature of the crime is bad, it is necessary to punish the Defendant strictly.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant's wrong approval, the first offender, the violation of the Public Official Election Act due to the provision of money, goods, etc. seems not to have led by the defendant but merely to follow the direction of the above Kim○○, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime are considered in the arguments of this case, the sentence like the order shall be determined by taking into account

3. Defendant 00,000 won was provided by Kim ○ in return for an assembly as seen earlier, and furthermore, it was not good to demand money to Kim ○○ in return for the payment of election campaign. The Defendant demanded KRW 100,000 to the original Kim ○○ in return for the demand. The Defendant refused to demand KRW 100,000,000, and then requested money again by stating more specific details than the previous one. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to see that the Defendant merely intended to indicate an objection against the exclusion of himself from the election campaign team, and it is difficult to see that the Defendant did not actually intended to receive money from Kim ○, and it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, it is against the defendant's wrong recognition of his or her mistake, the fact that there is no same record, and the part of receiving money, valuables, etc. were voluntarily surrendered, and Kim ○○ does not want punishment for the part of the demand for election campaign payment, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the same sentence as the order of punishment shall be determined by taking into account all the factors

The presiding judge and the judge;

Judges Unauthorizedd Judge

Judges or commercialia