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

(b) Offering of bribe;

1. A.

2. B

Defendants

C Law Firm (for Defendant A)

Attorney D, E, and F

Law Firm (LLC) G (for Defendant A)

Attorney H, I, and J

K Law Firm (for Defendant A)

Attorney L, M

Attorneys N. (P., for Defendant B)

Attorney Park J. (for Defendant B)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2018No87 decided June 22, 2018

October 4, 2018

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the judgment of the first instance court that convicted Defendant A of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) among the facts charged against Defendant A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of and payment for the crime of prior bribery, intent and subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe, amount of bribery, admissibility and probative value of the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution against Defendant B, and credibility of Q’s legal statement, or by violating the principle

B. Although Defendant A asserts that the provision of Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is a legal provision applied to the instant case, is unconstitutional, it shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is asserted in the ground of appeal by Defendant A only in the absence of the grounds for appeal by the lower court or ex officio decision. Furthermore, even upon examining the above provision, if the amount of acceptance of bribe is at least KRW 100 million, it is difficult to deem that such determination was erroneous on the basis of the legislator’s judgment that the acceptance of bribe was already seriously serious. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the above provision violates the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, or is contrary to the principle of equality against the balance between the punishment system (see Constitutional Court Order 2011HunBa364, Aug. 29, 2013).

C. Defendant A asserts that there are grounds to consider the circumstances, but this is merely the purport of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant A rendered a more minor sentence against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair

2. As to Defendant B

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court maintained the judgment of the first instance court that convicted Defendant A of the fact of offering of KRW 100 million among the facts charged against Defendant B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of the crime of offering of bribe

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Park Il-san

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Jong-soo