Do 2016 Do 2790 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

(b) Occupational embezzlement;

(c) Offering a bribe;

(d) Offering property in breach of trust;

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

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

2. B

Defendant 1

Attorney J (for Defendant A)

Law Firm K, a legal entity

Attorney EA, L, or M (Defendant B)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015No 2277 decided January 21, 2016

May 27, 2016

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, which was submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting a statement of grounds of appeal, are within the scope of supplement to the grounds of appeal) are determined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A in light of evidence duly admitted to the grounds of the original judgment as to the evidence of the first instance judgment on the evidence evidence and the fact of the receipt of a bribe among the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, it is all acceptable that Defendant A guilty of the charge of giving a bribe and the charge of giving a bribe among the facts of the instant public prosecution for the same reason as the judgment of the lower court is justifiable. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality that affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the illegal solicitation of the crime of giving a bribe, occupational relevance to a bribe, and the charge of giving a bribe.

2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal on the point of giving a bribe to Defendant B and the grounds of appeal by Defendant B

A. On the grounds as indicated in the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the money and valuables received from Defendant B of this case is an unfair profit in relation to his investigation and inspection duties, which constitutes a bribe, and that the defendant was aware of the fact that he did not have any negligence, and that he did not receive the allegation of the grounds for appeal by the defendant that there was a mistake in fact or a mistake in the legal principles.

In addition to the various circumstances described in the judgment of the court below, including the investigation intelligence and the request related thereto provided to Defendant A, the facts revealed by the records are as follows. In particular, Defendant B was involved in the investigation and inspection related to AB supply at that time; AM, as an employee of the AF, stated very specificly about various circumstances related to the instant case, seems to have no reason for Defendant A to make a statement unfavorable to Defendant A differently from the facts. AW’s work is an editing work that mainly takes place, such as a proposal, and it is hard to view that Defendant B did not have any justifiable reason for the lower court to have been paid one time more than a half year and five months in the form of monthly salary, and that Defendant B did not have any reasonable grounds for appeal, contrary to the legal principles as seen above, it is difficult to view that there is no reasonable ground for the lower court to have determined that Defendant B’s credibility of this case’s proposal, such as the fact that it was a very closely related one with Defendant A.

B. In addition, examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles, the general duties of police officials, and records, the determination that Defendant B received money and valuables in relation to their duties as public officials of the police officers of this case for the same reason as the judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable. In this sense, it is not recognized that there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles on the relation of duties in the crime of bribe, such as the Defendants’ assertion of the grounds for appeal.

C. In addition, when a bribe is received over several occasions, it should constitute a single and continuous crime (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1648, May 26, 1987, etc.). Considering the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the above legal doctrine, for the same reason as the judgment of the court below, Defendant B did not assert that the total amount of the remittance of KRW 38,686,240 from Defendant A was a single and continuous crime, or that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the bribe between the above Defendants B and B, etc. on August 10, 2010 to December 9, 201, the lower court did not err in misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of bribery, such as where the entire transfer of KRW 38,686,240 was a single and continuous crime, or where the entire transfer of KRW 38,68,240 was a justifiable reason for the judgment that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of bribery between the Defendants B and the above.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with the same opinion of all participating Justices, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent that all appeals are dismissed.

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Chief Justice Park Poe-dae

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kwon Soon-il