The crime of good offices taking place under Article 3 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) is established by “taking or receiving money or goods, etc.” under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to a public official’s official’s duties. Here, “conciliation” refers to an act of helping a party to make a decision in the direction of his/her wishes, by delivering the parties’ intentions to the public official, promoting convenience, or requesting or exercising influence on certain matters belonging to a public official’s duties.

In addition, the "Duties of public officials" includes cases of legitimate duties, and there is no need to specify the other party to good offices or the details of their duties, and if money or other valuables are received under the pretext of good offices as above, the above crimes are established regardless of which good offices are actually conducted.

Whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a broker and a beneficiary of a public official’s duties shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the contents of the relevant good offices, whether there is a friendship relationship between the broker and the beneficiary, the details and timing of receiving the benefits, etc. However, it is sufficient that there is a quid pro quo relationship among the money and valuables received by the broker and the broker, and furthermore, if the nature of the quid pro quo for the good offices and other acts is indivisible with the money and valuables received by the broker

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6570, Sept. 12, 2013). The lower court concluded a normal contract with I for tax investigation and made power of attorney.