1. As to the grounds of appeal on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A. The crime of good offices taking place under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established upon receiving or promising money and valuables or benefits under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of a public official. The actual act of good offices does not affect the establishment of the crime.

(1) A criminal intent that received money or goods from a public official under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to his/her official duties is an element constituting a criminal offense, and there is no strict proof to acknowledge such fact. However, in a case where the Defendant acknowledges the fact that “the receipt of money or goods, etc.,” but denies the criminal intent, the fact constituting such subjective element ought to be proven by indirect facts having substantial relevance with the criminal intent given the nature of an object.

What is the indirect facts of considerable relevance should be reasonably determined by the detailed observation or analysis history based on normal empirical rule.

(1) In a case where a person who received money and valuables receives money and asserts that he/she was to borrow money, not in exchange for the money, the recipient of the money and valuables actually borrows the money and not in exchange for the money, the economic situation of the lender and the provision of money and valuables is relevant to the motive, the reason and method of delivery, the relationship between the recipient and the money and the money donor, the position and occupation of the two parties, the necessity of the recipient and the possibility of borrowing money from any person other than the lender, the amount and method of borrowing money and the economic situation of the lender.