Do 2015 Do 17139 A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) An illegal agency after accepting a bribe;

(c) Acceptance of bribe;

D. Violation of the Political Funds Act

(e) Offering a bribe;

1. (a) b. (c) d. A;

2. D. B

3. D. e. C

Defendant A, C, and Prosecutor (Defendant A and B)

Law Firm BO (for Defendant A)

Attorney BT, BU, BV

Attorney CI (for Defendant C)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2014 97 decided October 22, 2015

February 18, 2016

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. (1) The lower court determined that each of the above statements was credibility on the grounds of the facts and circumstances as indicated in its holding on the grounds of violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and violation of the Political Funds Act (1) and acknowledged the facts that Defendant A received KRW 30 million from this C as evidence.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, there is no error of the lower court’s aforementioned determination, such as: (a) going beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules; (b) going beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules; or (c) misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of credibility of a statement made by a money or valuables donor.

(2) Article 129(2) of the Criminal Act provides that the prior acceptance of a bribe is a requirement to receive a request different from the case of a simple acceptance of a bribe. At this time, the solicitation refers to requesting a public official to perform a certain act of duty, and it is not a question that the act of duty is unlawful, and it does not necessarily require that the solicitation be clearly stated (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911, Jul. 23, 1999, etc.). In addition, in this case, there is no need to specify the act of duty, but there is no possibility to act and omission (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4782, Aug. 14, 2013).

After recognizing the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A issued KRW 30 million from C on April 22, 2011, and after K, Defendant A can be recognized as having received an implied request for convenience in relation to the selection of construction companies under this order and the supply of government-funded materials necessary for various construction works, and it is reasonable to deem that the content of the request also has a certain degree of specification.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the original judgment, the above determination by the original judgment is justifiable, and there is no error in its reasoning, such as, at the same time, going beyond the limit of the attention of free evaluation against the logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on solicitation in the prior bribery charge, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Regarding the issue of unjust disposition after acceptance of the bribe

After recognizing the facts and circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, the statement of C and V, consistent with this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, is reliable, and when comprehensively considering other evidence submitted by each of the above statements and prosecutor, C, a restaurant "AC," delivered KRW 5 million in the name of overseas training expenses, and Defendant A, this part of the public prosecution, on the ground that this part of the prosecution was proved without any reasonable doubt, for the reason that the facts charged against Defendant A were proved to have been acquitted, the judgment of the court of first instance, which rendered a verdict of innocence, was reversed and convicted.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, there is no error in the lower court’s aforementioned determination, such as: (a) going beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal; (b) judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a provider of money or goods; and (c) misunderstanding the legal doctrine on unlawful acts committed in the crime of unfair acts committed after acceptance of a bribe.

2. Examining the reasoning for Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the original judgment based on the reasoning of the original judgment, it is justifiable to acknowledge Defendant C as guilty of the fact of granting a bribe due to Defendant C’s KRW 5 million out of the facts of the instant public prosecution against Defendant C on the ground as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and it is also reasonable to acknowledge Defendant C as guilty of the fact of granting a bribe due to Defendant C’s KRW 5 million among the facts of the instant public prosecution against Defendant C on the ground

There is no wrong error, such as misunderstanding the legal principles on job relevance in the granted crime.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor

After recognizing the circumstances as stated in the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant B guilty on the ground that it is difficult to view that Defendant B’s statement consistent with the facts of the prosecution of this case has credibility to the extent of excluding a reasonable doubt, and that it is difficult to recognize the facts of prosecution in view of other indirect evidence hearing submitted by the prosecutor, even after considering other indirect evidence hearing, among the facts of the prosecution of this case, the fact of violation of political fund law due to Defendant B’s delivery of KRW 30 million among the facts of the prosecution of this case was not proven, and thus, the judgment of first instance which found Defendant A guilty was reversed and the judgment of acquittal was pronounced to Defendant A and Defendant B.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the record, we can agree with the above determination by the original judgment, and there is no error in its reasoning, such as deviating from the limit of the duty of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Kwon Soon-il