beta
Cases
1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)
(b) Occupational embezzlement;
Defendant
○ ○
Seoul - 1
Appellant
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney omitted
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010No447 Decided September 14, 2010
Imposition of Judgment
January 12, 2012
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The crime of good offices or acceptance of money and valuables is established under the pretext of acting as a broker for matters belonging to the duties of a public official. Here, the term "mediation" refers to an act of delivering the intention of a party to a certain matter belonging to the duties of a public official to the public official, promoting convenience, requesting or exercising influence on the duties of a public official, etc. In this case, the duties of a public official shall be included in the case of legitimate duties of a public official, and there is no need to specify the contents of a public official who is the other party to good offices or the contents of his duties. In addition, if a public official receives money and valuables under the pretext of good offices as above, the above crime is established regardless of the actual act of good offices. Whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a broker and a profit provider shall be comprehensively determined on the basis of the contents of the good offices in question, whether there is a pro quo relationship between a broker and a profit provider, the details and timing of the good offices or acceptance of money and valuables, etc., and if there is an indivisible nature of the good offices or acceptance of such act.
2. 원심판결 이유를 위 법리와 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거 등에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 그 판시와 같은 사정을 이유로 피고인이 ◆◆◆로부터, 판시 어린이집 위탁업체 선정과 관련된 공무원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 돈을 수수하였다는 이 사건 알선수재의 점에 대한 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 조치는 정당한 것으로 수긍할 수 있다. 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률이 정한 알선의 의미에 관한 법리오해 또는 논리와 경험의 법칙을 위반하여 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어난 위법 등이 있다고 할 수 없다. 그리고 사실의 인정과 그 전제가 되는 증거의 취사선택 및 평가는 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어나지 않는 한 사실심법원의 전권에 속하는 것이므로 그 한계를 벗어나는 정도에 이르지 못하는 단순한 사실오인의 주장은 적법한 상고이유가 되지 못한다 .
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae-young
Justices Park Poe-young
Justices Shin Young-chul-chul Do-gu
Chief Justice Park Poe-dae