2013Do2256 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Defendant)

The name of each recognized crime against B and C: Acceptance of bribe

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Defendants and Prosecutor ( Defendants 2 and 3)

Law Firm D

Seoul High Court Decision 2012No3580 Decided February 7, 2013

April 11, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant B on the ground that there is no proof of criminal facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) under the premise that the sum of KRW 1-4, 23-28 of the sum of KRW 1,600,000 and KRW 1-5,20 of the sum of KRW 1,200,000 in the attached Table 1-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance among the facts charged against Defendant B, and the sum of KRW 1,200,000 among the facts charged against Defendant C, and there is no illegality in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating the logical and empirical rules.

2. As to Defendant E’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant E guilty of charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

3. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted in the first instance trial, the lower court determined that it could sufficiently be recognized that Defendant B received money and valuables of KRW 29 million as stated in the judgment of the first instance as a bribe.

Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment and the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of the amount of bribery acceptance and the principle of self-responsibility in the crime of acceptance of bribe, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

4. As to Defendant C’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of proof, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Gin-young