Do 2016 Do 16145 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(b) Property in breach of trust;

(c) Dried trees;

1. (a) A;

2. (c) B

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor (Objection to Defendant)

Law Firm (Limited LLC) BF (Defendant A)

Attorney BL, BG, H, BI

F. Law firm F. (For defendant 2)

Attorney H, G in charge

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No 941 decided September 22, 2016

January 12, 2017

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the duties referred to in the crime of bribery include not only the duties assigned to a public official under this Act and subordinate statutes, but also the acts closely related to the work, or the acts of actual involvement in custom or practice. However, whether a specific act falls under the duties of a public official shall be determined by taking into account the practical aspects of whether it is deemed necessary in relation to the duties to be performed by a public official in relation to the duties to be performed by a public official, along with the form of whether it was performed by a public official in a lump sum (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2453, May 26, 201).

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, that the duties performed by the Defendant A as the chief of the J Construction Project Headquarters, can be regarded as duties performed in relation to the position of a public official or duties performed in relation to the duties of a public official (hereinafter “T”). Accordingly, the Defendant A’s act of receiving money and valuables and entertainment, upon the request of the JJ I et al. to the purport that it would be different from the duties of the public official, shall be regarded as an act of accepting bribe in relation to the duties of the public official. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the relation to the duties of the crime of accepting bribe, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. The non-guilty part

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, in the case of golf-friendly relationship with Defendant A, L is required to calculate the amount of the accepted bribery of Defendant A based on the criteria for the expenses incurred for Defendant A’s golf-related relationship. L is limited to the membership he owns and does not accompany Defendant A, and the direct expenses incurred for Defendant A’s golf-related entertainment, it can be deemed that Defendant A was provided with convenience or hedge-related services by using the membership card with Defendant A, and thus, the economic value of this convenience or benefits should be calculated as the amount of the accepted bribery of Defendant A, and the amount of the accepted bribery of Defendant A should be excluded from the total expenses incurred for Defendant A’s golf entertainment of KRW 1 through 5, 19 through 23, 390, 500, and this portion of the accepted bribery of KRW 50,000, the amount of the accepted bribery of Defendant A’s 60,000,000 won other than the amount of the accepted bribery of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the record, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to calculation of the amount of bribe without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court of not guilty in light of the record, it is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant A guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below and that both Defendant A’s receipt of money from Defendant B and Defendant B’s receipt of money and valuables constituted a case where Defendant B did not have any proof of crime, and that the judgment of the court of first instance was not guilty. In this regard, the appeal did not err by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal.

C. The guilty part

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the original court, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the reasoning of appeal as to the guilty portion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Hee-de

Justices Park Sang-ok