[1] The elements to acknowledge the conviction only by the statement of the person who has received the bribe in the case of the bribery where the person who was selected as the person who received the bribe denies the fact of the bribery and there is no evidence such as financial materials to support the bribery

[2] The standard for determining whether the profit acquired by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unfair profit having a quid pro quo relation with his duties

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant's golf exercise expenses, hotel accommodation expenses, and vehicle usage fees received from a trading partner company are a bribe related to his duties

[1] Article 129 of the Criminal Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes / [2] Article 129 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 129 of the Criminal Act; Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do5701 decided Jun. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1720) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5438 decided Sep. 18, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2302) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do970 decided Mar. 15, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 935)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant 3)

Attorneys Kim J-jin et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2005No51 Delivered on June 3, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. As to Defendant 1, 110 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. As to Defendant 1’s appeal

In the case of bribery, in order to admit the defendant, who is selected as the bribeer, denies the fact of the bribery at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, and there is no evidence such as financial materials to support it, the statement of the bribeer must be admissible as evidence, and there should be credibility enough to exclude a reasonable doubt. In order to determine the credibility of the statement, it should also be examined not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, but also its human nature, and existence of interests derived from the statement (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5701 Decided June 11, 2002).

In light of the fact that the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority and the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority made a statement to the effect that it is difficult to maintain convenience in the transaction of derivative financial instruments between the Defendant 1 and the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority, the lower court’s statement made by Nonindicted 1 to Defendant 1 on five occasions, including ① the time and place of giving money, the method of delivery, and the reason for delivery, etc., are clearly explained. Thus, even if the Defendant 1 made a false statement on the location of the shop, it can be seen that the entire statement was made to Defendant 1, as well as that of the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority’s statement to the effect that it would be consistent with the legal principles that it would have been consistent with the objective guidelines for the delivery of money borrowed from Nonindicted 2 to Defendant 1, 300,000 won as well as that of the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority’s statement made by Nonindicted 1 to the effect that it would be consistent with the objective guidelines for the delivery of money to Nonindicted 1 and the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority’s statement.

2. As to Defendant 2’s appeal

가. 원심은, 그 채택 증거들에 의하여 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 한국고속철도건설공단과 도이치은행 사이의 파생금융상품거래와 관련하여 편의를 봐 달라는 취지로 공단 재무본부 자금처장이던 피고인 2에게 2회에 걸쳐 합계 2,000만 원을 주었다는 공소외 1의 진술은, ① 진술시마다 돈을 준 정확한 시기를 다소 다르게 진술하고 있으나 이는 기억력의 한계로 인한 것으로 보여지고, 대체로 그 교부 시기를 2003. 6. 말경 또는 같은 해 7. 초순경과 같은 해 12. 중순경으로 진술하는 점에서 일관되어 있는 점, ② 돈을 교부할 당시 피고인 2의 태도나 당시의 정황을 구체적으로 상세하게 진술하고 있는 점, ③ 돈을 교부한 동기에 관하여 진술시마다 사소한 차이를 보이고 있으나, 대체로 한국고속철도건설공단 내에서 파생금융상품거래에 관하여 자금본부장 바로 아래에서 차순위 결재권을 행사하는 지위에 있던 피고인 2의 직무와 관련하여 그 거래가 원활하게 이루어질 수 있도록 도와달라는 취지였다는 점에서 일관되어 있는 점, ④ 피고인 2에게 돈을 전달하거나 전달할 돈을 보관한 방법에 관하여도 세세한 부분에서는 진술시마다 다소 차이가 있으나, 이 또한 기억력의 한계로 인한 것으로 보이는 데다가 대체로 공소외 4로부터 받아 현금으로 보관하고 있던 돈을 1만 원 짜리로 된 1,000만 원 묶음 다발로 하여 도이치은행의 누런 색 대봉투에 넣어 건네주었다는 점에서는 일관되고 있는 점, ⑤ 돈을 교부할 무렵인 2003. 6. 25.경 및 같은 해 7. 9.경, 같은 해 12. 15.경의 각 파생금융상품거래에서 농업협동조합중앙회의 거래상대방이 도이치은행이 아니더라도 한국고속철도건설공단과 농업협동조합중앙회 사이의 거래가 성사되기만 하면 공소외 4로부터 돈을 받을 수 있는 상황이었으므로, 공소외 1로서는 평소 자주 만나 식사를 하는 등 친분관계를 맺어온 피고인 2에게 돈을 주어 그 거래를 성사시키려고 하였다고 보이고, 실제로 위 각 일시를 전후하여 한국고속철도건설공단과 농업협동조합중앙회 사이의 파생금융상품거래가 성사되었으므로 그 무렵 피고인 2에게 돈을 주었다는 진술이 객관적 정황에도 합치하는 점, ⑥ 피고인 2가 파생금융상품거래의 결재권자로서 결재를 까다롭게 하였고, 특히 2003. 12. 중순경의 파생금융상품거래를 주도하였다는 공소외 3의 진술이 공소외 1의 진술을 뒷받침하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 그 진술내용 자체의 합리성, 객관적 상당성, 전후의 일관성이 인정될 뿐만 아니라, 그 진술로 오히려 공소외 1이 처벌을 받을 수도 있는 점, 당시 공소외 1이 한국고속철도건설공단과 농업협동조합중앙회 사이의 파생금융상품거래를 성사시킨 사례로 공소외 4로부터 37억 원의 거액을 수수하였던 점, 공소외 1이 피고인 2에 대하여 특별히 허위로 불리한 진술을 할 이유가 없는 점 등에 비추어, 공소외 1의 진술에 신빙성을 인정할 수 있는 반면, 공소외 1로부터 롯데백화점 상품권 10만 원짜리 3매를 받았을 뿐 현금 합계 2,000만 원을 교부받은 사실이 없다는 피고인 2의 진술은, ① 농업협동조합중앙회가 한국고속철도건설공단과의 파생금융상품거래와 관련하여 브릿지 은행으로서 어느 금융기관과 거래를 하는지 알지 못하였다는 진술은 당시 공단 자금처장으로서 최종결재권자인 재무본부장의 차순위 결재권자였던 피고인 2의 지위와 파생금융상품거래를 적극적으로 주선한 도이치은행의 공소외 1을 자주 만나는 사이에 있었던 점에 비추어 믿기 어려운 점, ② 피고인 2는 공소사실 일시에 힐튼 호텔 일식당 겐지에서 공소외 1을 만난 사실 자체를 부인하면서도 2003. 일자 불상경 같은 식당에서 공소외 1과 첫 번째 점심식사를 마친 후 누런 색 도이치은행 대봉투에 들어 있는 상품권 3장을 교부받았다고 진술하고 있는바, 상품권의 크기나 수량에 비추어 그 주장을 쉽게 믿기 어려운 점, ③ 공소외 1과 함께 갔다고 하는 중국 세미나 개최 장소에 대하여도 허위 진술을 한 점 등에 비추어 그 신빙성을 인정할 수 없다는 이유로, 피고인 2가 2003. 6. 말경부터 7. 초순경 사이 및 같은 해 12. 중순경 힐튼 호텔 일식당 겐지에서 한국고속철도건설공단과 농업협동조합중앙회 사이의 파생금융상품거래와 관련하여 편의를 봐달라는 취지로 제공하는 각 1,000만 원씩을 공소외 1로부터 수수하여 그 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 수수하였다는 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 제1심의 결론을 유지하였는바, 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 기록을 살펴보면, 이러한 원심의 조치도 옳은 것으로 수긍이 가고, 거기에 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실을 오인하거나 심리를 미진한 위법 또는 뇌물죄에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

B. Meanwhile, the court below rejected Defendant 2’s assertion that Defendant 2 did not believe that Defendant 2 did not recognize that Defendant 2 would receive bribe amount in light of the fact that Defendant 2 made a false statement of the venue of the seminars in the investigation process to Hong Kong, Singapore, etc., not North China, and the Prosecutor presented approval documents related to the overseas travel of the President of the Korea High-Speed Rail Construction Authority (Korea High-Speed Construction Authority). Defendant 2 did not understand that Defendant 2 would receive bribe amount as a bribe amount. Defendant 1 would be able to believe that Nonindicted Party 1 would participate in the seminars held in China to the effect that he would be able to receive convenience in connection with the transaction of derivative financial derivatives by the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority (Korea High-Speed Construction Authority). Defendant 2 sent a written request to attend the seminars in the name of the Korea High-Speed Construction Authority, and made a Chinese trip from August 21, 2003 to August 24, 2003, and Defendant 150,000 won of the facts charged.

3. As to Defendant 3’s appeal

Whether a public official’s profit constitutes a bribe as an unfair profit in a quid pro quo relationship, must be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the content of the public official’s duty, the relationship between the provider and the beneficiary, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, the degree of interest, the circumstances and timing of receiving the benefit, etc. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is a fair performance of duty and the trust of the society, the issue of whether a public official’s receiving the benefit is suspected of being fair in the performance of duty from the general public is an important standard for determining whether the crime of bribery is a fair performance of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5438, Sept. 18, 200; 201Do970, Mar. 15, 2002).

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below recognized that Defendant 3 received benefits equivalent to KRW 325,00,00 from the golf exercise expenses provided by Nonindicted Party 1 to the effect that Defendant 3 changed convenience in relation to the derivative financial product transaction from the ‘Pacle 1' golf course located in Hong Kong-si on April 25, 2004, and received benefits equivalent to KRW 267,00,000 from the ‘Gannam 300' golf course located in Gwangju-si on July 10 of the same year, and there was a conflict between Hong Kong and Hong Kong on July 16 of the same year, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above golf exercise expenses or the above-mentioned legal principles, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged with the above golf exercise expenses, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts-finding or the above-mentioned legal principles as a bribe.

4. As to the prosecutor's appeal

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found it difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to request the Korea Rail Network Authority to provide money to Nonindicted Party 1 on the aggregate of Nonindicted Party 1’s investment in the case of Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 1’s investment in the case of Nonindicted Party 1’s issuance of money to Nonindicted Party 3 on December 203. In so doing, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted Party 1’s request for the return of money to Nonindicted Party 1 on the grounds that it was difficult for the Korea Rail Network Authority to take advantage of the fact-finding Party 1’s current demand for delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 3 and that Nonindicted Party 1’s investment in the case of Nonindicted Party 1’s investment in the case of Nonindicted Party 3 to Nonindicted Party 1 on the grounds that it was difficult for the Korea Rail Network Authority to take advantage of the fact-finding’s current demand for delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 1 on the grounds that it would have been difficult for the Korea Rail Network Authority to take advantage of the fact-finding demand for delivery of money to Nonindicted Party 2.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)