Do 2018 5441 A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) Offering a bribe;

(c) Magion;

D. Violation of the Political Funds Act

1. (c) A;

2. (a) d. B

Defendant 1

Law Firm C (for Defendant A)

Attorney D, E, and F in charge

G (for Defendant A) a legal entity G

Attorney H, I, J. K, L, M

Attorney N (for Defendant B)

Attorney Lee In-bok (for defendant B)

P, a legal entity, P (for Defendant B)

Attorney Q, R, S in charge

Corporation T (for Defendant B)

Attorney in charge U, V, W, X

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2017No 265 decided March 28, 2018

June 28, 2018

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the statement of the grounds of appeal submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal is within the scope of supplement to the grounds of appeal) are determined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. The point of offering a bribe to Defendant B

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, on the ground that Defendant A’s delivery in cash to Y for Defendant B, constitutes a bribe of KRW 150 million, and thus, the court below convicted Defendant B of all of the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on relation to the duty of free evaluation of evidence or the quid pro quo, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. The point of entry into the Z

On the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted him of the public conflict with the Z on the ground of its reasoning. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of an act of attack and attack, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation between the person who committed a crime of attack and attack, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on the admissibility of evidence in light of relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the admissibility of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Violation of the Political Funds Act

The court below found Defendant B guilty on the grounds as stated in its ruling. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted by the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the violation of the Political Funds Act with respect to Defendant B, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the grounds of appeal, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal, and thereby violating the legal rules of logic and experience, thereby exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the specific facts of crime with the donor, the establishment time of crime, the amount of contribution and the credibility of testimony.

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

Based on the reasoning stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) against Defendant B. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence adopted by the court below's dual law, the court below's judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the punishment of Specific Crimes (Bribery) or by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of the court below, such as the grounds for appeal, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the grounds for appeal, thereby violating the legal rules of logic and experience, thereby exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of the court below.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa