The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of repeating good offices under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established by giving or receiving money or other valuables under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of a public official. Here, “Embling” refers to an act of delivering the intentions of the parties to a certain matter belonging to the duties of a public official to the public official, promoting convenience, or helping them make a decision in a direction desired by the parties by demanding or exercising influence on the duties of a public official. Since it is nothing more than in the future, there is no need for any pending issue to be resolved by good offices at the time of offering or receiving money or other valuables, and there is no need to specify the other party to good offices or the contents of their duties in detail. If money or other valuables are given or received under the pretext of good offices, the above crime is established regardless of what good offices are actually arranged (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do6570, Sept. 12, 2013; 2014Do1324, May 29, 2019).