beta
(영문) 대법원 2013.12.26 2013도10833

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. In the case of bribery in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), the term "duty" includes not only the duty under the jurisdiction of the public official, but also the duty under the jurisdiction of the public official, or the duty under the jurisdiction of the custom or the actual jurisdiction, and the duty under the jurisdiction of the person with decision authority, which can assist

In addition, the issue of which profit a public official gains is an unfair profit in relation to his/her duties, shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s duties, the relationship between a performance of duties and a benefit provider, whether there exists a special private-friendly relationship between each other, the degree of excess profit, the circumstances and timing of receiving and receiving benefits, etc. In light of the legal interest protected by the law, whether the bribery is a public official’s receipt of such benefit and the fairness of performing his/her duties from the society as a result of receiving and receiving the benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17797, Mar. 24, 2011). In addition, in the crime of bribery, if a public official repeatedly commits the same kind of crime under a single and continuous criminal offense for a certain period and legal interest is identical, the day he/she receives the benefit for a considerable period of time, and there is a reasonable period of time between the date he/she received the money.

Even if each crime is committed, it is reasonable to punish it as an inclusive crime.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the term “public-private partnership project” means the time and amount of check delivery and receipt, and the private investment project of this case, in light of the following: (a) the relationship between Defendant A and Defendant B; and (b) the progress of the construction and operation of public-private partnership project of L University, including the OO of L University (hereinafter “instant public-private partnership project”).