Standard for determining whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between the referral of matters belonging to the duties of public officials and the money received or received in connection with the crime of arranging or receiving funds under Article 3 of the Act on

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117 Decided January 31, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 342) Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6570 Decided September 12, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12394 Decided October 30, 2014

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 2012No65 decided December 13, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The offense of receiving good offices is a crime established by “taking and receiving money and other valuables, etc.,” under the pretext of mediating matters belonging to the duties of a public official. Whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a broker and a provider of good offices shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the contents of the relevant good offices, whether there is a pro quo relationship between a broker and a provider of good offices, the degree of profit, the details and timing of receiving and receiving benefits, etc. However, it is sufficient that there is a comprehensive and comprehensive quid pro quo relationship between a broker and a received and received money and other valuables (see, e.g.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant of the charges of this case that the defendant received benefits equivalent to the amount of the credit card of this case and the amount of the amount of the credit card of this case after the date of solicitation and the amount of the credit card used at the time of solicitation from the non-indicted, and there is no special difference in economic support based on internal relations, such as the defendant's relationship and the amount of the credit card used at the time of solicitation. At the time of solicitation, the non-indicted did not have any circumstances requiring the defendant to return the credit card of this case and the passenger car of this case at the time of solicitation. The defendant continued to use or store and use the credit card of this case and the passenger car of this case which was delivered by internal relations as part of economic support based on internal relations even after the time of solicitation.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable in light of the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the determination of the quid pro quo of the crime of good offices and good offices, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. Furthermore, unless the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence which is the premise thereof do not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the mere assertion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)