[1] The meaning of "using its position" and "the duties of officers and employees of affiliated financial institutions or other financial institutions" in the crime of good offices taking part in Article 5 (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

[2] The purpose of necessary confiscation or collection under Article 10 (2) and (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Gyeongbuk Law Firm, Attorneys Young-young et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 2004No517 decided Jan. 27, 2005

The appeal shall be dismissed. The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 80 days in each original sentence.

1. As to Defendant 1’s appeal

A. The crime of acceptance of good offices under Article 5 (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is established when an officer or employee of a financial institution gives, receives, demands, or promises money, goods, or other benefits with respect to intermediation of matters belonging to the duties of an officer or employee of a financial institution or another financial institution by taking advantage of his/her position. Here, "using his/her position" refers to cases where an officer or employee of a financial institution which may have direct or indirect relations with the officer or employee of the financial institution or another financial institution in the course of performing his/her duties uses his/her position (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3849, Feb. 27, 200; 2004Do3546, Jul. 22, 2004; 200Do3846, Apr. 26, 200).

According to the evidence of employment, the court below found that Defendant 1 received KRW 20 million each by requesting the Financial Supervisory Service to review the status of the president of the non-indicted 1 credit union and the non-indicted 2 credit union (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 2 credit union federation"), the regular director of the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 4 credit union (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 4 credit union") from the non-indicted 5, the executive director of the non-indicted 1 credit union (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 2 credit union"), the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 7, and the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 4, the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 500, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, the directors of the new wholesale.

B. The necessary confiscation or collection pursuant to the provisions of Article 10(2) and (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is for the purpose of depriving a criminal or a third party of money, goods, or other benefits and preventing such person from holding illegal profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do3064, Feb. 25, 1994; 2004Do1674, Jul. 8, 2004); and as long as Defendant 1 receives KRW 40 million from Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 5 through the Chairperson, etc. of the New Cooperatives Federation, etc., as long as it is deemed that the necessary confiscation or collection under the provisions of Article 10(2) and (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is a solicitation from the Financial Supervisory Service to prevent it from being subject to a disposition of suspension of business, the court below's decision maintaining the first instance judgment ordering the collection of the full amount from Defendant 1 is justifiable, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding.

2. As to Defendant 2’s appeal

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant 2 guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 5’s employees to request the Financial Supervisory Service employees not to be subject to the disposition of business suspension at the parking lot for the suspendment area located in Yaeung-gu, Daegu on April 199, on the ground that Defendant 2 received the demand from Nonindicted 5 to request the Financial Supervisory Service employees not to be subject to the disposition of business suspension, and that the president of the New Cooperation Federation may directly or indirectly affect the disposition of business suspension for the unit dispatch of the Financial Supervisory Service. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant 2 guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that Defendant 2 received KRW 20 million as an agent for the affairs handled by employees of the Financial Supervisory Service, taking advantage of the position of the president of the New Cooperation Federation as the president. In light of the above legal principles, it is

3. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and some number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)