Attorney Kim Jae-in

Law Firm Pyeongan Law Firm

Attorney Ahn Dai-hee, Justice Lee Young-hoon

1. For the following reasons, the lower court maintained the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the first instance court and the statement of K and N by K and N of the lower court, K is 2014.

8. The judgment of the court of first instance that recognized that the relationship between the duty and the quid pro quo is recognized is reasonable to deliver the defendant's delivery of KRW 100,000 to the defendant, who requested the extension of the budget bill M (hereinafter "M") to the defendant at the end.

B. When the defendant receives KRW 100 million, there was an intention to receive money in connection with the Marina M& budget.

C. Whether K’s delivery of KRW 100 million to the Defendant constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) or an occupational embezzlement is irrelevant to the establishment of the crime of acceptance of bribe against the Defendant.

D. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s KRW 100 million received from K constituted legitimate use of L Special Project Costs.

E. There is no reason to believe that the defendant's act was not a crime as permitted by law, or there is no justifiable reason to believe that the defendant's act was not a crime.

F. 10 million won received by the Defendant constitutes an indivisible combination of the nature of the consideration for the act of duties and other characteristics, and thus, the full amount of KRW 100 million constitutes a bribe, and there is no error in the judgment of the first instance court that applied the crime of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Bribery).

2. Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s determination on fact-finding is nothing more than disputing the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which actually belongs to the free judgment of the lower court.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act regarding the duties relationship in the crime of bribery, quid pro quo, dolus negligence, L, Special Project Expenses, the relationship between the bribery and the National Treasury Loss, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the Specific

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min Min-young