A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

Assistance

A

Prosecutor

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Park Jong-chul, Park Jong-chul, Lee Jong-chul,

Seoul High Court Decision 2018No2186 Decided August 13, 2019

November 5, 2020

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the ground that it is difficult to view that the former president received the special project cost as indicated in L and N is related to the duties of the President or received the money in a quid pro quo relationship, and thus, it cannot be recognized as aiding and abetting the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, but its conclusion is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duty relationship of bribery, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the crime of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) by embezzlement is an aggravated provision on the crime of embezzlement or occupational embezzlement under the Criminal Act, and that the Defendant has no status as an employee in charge of accounting or a person in charge of the business of H funds. On this premise, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the charges on the grounds that if the Defendant participated as an accomplice in the crime of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) in which H funds were embezzled, the statutory punishment, which serves as the basis for the statute of limitations, should be based on the statutory punishment for the crime of embezzlement, on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legal nature of the crime of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and the status of the custodian in the course of business

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa

Justices Kim Jong-soo

Justices Lee Dong-gu