Do 2019 2344 A. Bribery

(b) Acceptance of bribe;

(c) Disclosure of secrets on official duties.

1.(a)

A

2.(a)

B

3.(b).

C

4.(a)

D

5.2

E

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

Law Firm Corporation (Limited) Clouse (for Defendant A),

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Park Jong-soo, Ma-won, and Ma-won in charge

Attorney Park Jung-hwan ( for Defendant B)

Co., Ltd. (for Defendant C)

Attorney Park Jong-soo in charge

Attorney Song Jin-man (for defendant D)

legal entity (with limited liability) Dongin (for Defendant E),

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jin-su

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) Decision 2018 41 decided January 30, 2019

June 13, 2019

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of each appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting a statement of grounds of appeal, and the grounds of appeal in the statement of grounds of appeal in the statement of grounds of appeal are within the scope that supplements the grounds of appeal).

1. On the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which rendered a judgment not guilty, on the ground that the facts charged against Defendant D and the facts charged against Defendant E regarding the receipt of a bribe from Defendant D among the facts charged against Defendant E do not constitute a crime. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the relation of duties and consideration in a bribe. In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the relation of duties and consideration in a bribe.

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant E, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment below, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the fact of giving a bribe to Defendant E among the facts of the public prosecution against Defendant A, the fact of granting a bribe around February 2015, the fact of the public prosecution against Defendant B, the fact of receiving a bribe around February 2015 among the facts of the public prosecution against Defendant C, the fact of leakage of official secrets, the fact of the public prosecution against Defendant C, the fact of receiving a bribe from Defendant A and Defendant B among the facts of the public prosecution against Defendant E, and the fact of receiving a bribe from the Defendant A and Defendant B among the facts of the public prosecution against Defendant E, the lower court did not err in misapprehending the legal doctrine on a free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, thereby exceeding the limit of a free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on a crime related to a bribe and a disclosure of confidential information in the course of performing official duties.

3. Conclusion

All appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Lee Dong-won