[1] Whether the crime of acceptance of good offices is established in a case where money and valuables provided as a reward for abstract and vague expectations is received (negative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the defendant's provision of money and valuables, specific solicitation, and the status and relationship between the defendant and the donor cannot be established

[1] Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act / [2] Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5655 decided Nov. 12, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 2076) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6647 decided Nov. 25, 2004

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorneys Doh-won et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2003No2407 delivered on February 17, 2004

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the evidence of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the following facts: (a) consistent statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the first instance court and the court below since the first prosecutorial investigation of Nonindicted 1, a provider of money, was conducted by Nonindicted 3; (b) Non-Indicted 1, who prepared for 30 million won by Nonindicted 1’s age, career, occupation, character and behavior, and statement; and (c) Nonindicted 3’s statement of money delivery to the President of the Bosung Group’s office; (d) Non-Indicted 1, who made it difficult for the Defendant to accept the Defendant’s request from the President of the Korea Asset Management Corporation for a long time after the Defendant’s interview with his defense counsel, based on the fact that there was no possibility that the Defendant provided money to the Defendant, as a general secretary of the Korea Asset Management Corporation, could exercise influence over the suspension of business or cancellation of business; and (d) Nonindicted 3, a general secretary of the Korea Asset Management Corporation, who stated the Defendant’s money and other valuables.

B. The allegation that the lower court’s punishment is excessive in this case for which a sentence of less than 10 years was imposed cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In order to establish the crime of arranging and receiving money, etc. under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, matters to be arranged are matters belonging to the duties of public officials, and the fact that the name of receiving money, etc. is related to arranging the said matters. The mere fact that the donor of money, etc. maintains a good relationship with the recipient of money, etc., and provided money, etc. to a remote expectation to the extent that he/she is not likely to receive any assistance or incur any loss with respect to the matters belonging to the duties of public officials, and the recipient of money, etc. is also provided with money, etc. with such expectation and received them by the donor, it cannot be deemed that the crime of arranging and receiving is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do565, Nov. 12, 2004; 2004Do647, Nov. 25, 2004, etc.).

In light of the adopted evidence, Nonindicted 3’s request to the effect that Nonindicted 3 would not know that Nonindicted 1 would have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 3 at the beginning of the election, and that Nonindicted 1 would not have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 3 at the time of Nonindicted 1’s request, and that Nonindicted 3 would not have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 1 at the time of election, and that Nonindicted 3 would not have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 3 at the time of election, and that Nonindicted 1 would not have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 3 at the time of election. In light of the above, the lower court determined that Nonindicted 3 would not have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 1,00, and that Nonindicted 3 would not have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 3 at the time of election, and that Nonindicted 1 would have been able to provide money and goods to Nonindicted 3 at the time of election for the Defendant’s general election.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The grounds

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)