logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.07.24 2014도802
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of good offices taking place under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established upon receiving, demanding or promising money and valuables or benefits under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of public officials. The actual act of good offices does not affect the establishment of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117 Decided January 31, 2008, etc.). The term “mediation” in this context refers to the act of mediating or facilitating letters or convenience between a certain person and his/her counterpart regarding a certain matter. As such, an act of transferring a solicitation made by a person to the other party or soliciting himself/herself on behalf of the other party constitutes an act of arranging”.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2609 delivered on December 26, 1997, and 2004Do7359 delivered on January 28, 2005, etc.). In addition, the criminal intent that received money and valuables under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to a public official’s official’s duties is a requirement constituting a criminal offense, and there is a strict proof in order to acknowledge it. However, in a case where the criminal intent is denied even if the criminal intent is recognized as having received money and valuables, the facts constituting such subjective element are to be proven by indirect facts having considerable relevance to the criminal intent given the nature of the things.

What is the indirect facts of considerable relevance should be reasonably determined by the detailed observation or analysis history based on normal empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2064 Decided March 12, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8780 Decided June 24, 2005, etc.). On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court held that the Defendant received KRW 30 million as consideration upon receiving a request from S to arrange and arrange for a public official so that R would be subject to a special amnesty of 815, and received KRW 30 million as consideration.

arrow