[1] Job relationship and bribe in the crime of bribery

[2] The case recognizing the establishment of the crime of offering of a bribe in case where the chairman of the reconstruction promotion committee provided a public official in charge twice a meal for the prompt establishment authorization of the reconstruction association

[1] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6721 Decided July 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2142) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5190 Decided February 1, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Lee Jin-jin

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006No604 decided Nov. 21, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

When a public official receives money, valuables, or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties, barring special circumstances, such as merely an equivalent consideration in light of social norms or a person’s personal-friendly relationship with him/her, and thus, cannot be deemed to have no connection with his/her duties. If a public official received money or other valuables in relation to his/her duties, even if he/she received money or other valuables by lending the form of a private case, the money or other valuables received shall be a bribe (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6721, Jul. 26, 2002; 2007Do5190, Feb. 1, 2008).

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s offering of the bribe to Nonindicted Party 1 in collusion with Nonindicted Party 2 at the time, to grant prompt authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association, the Defendant provided the Defendant with the Defendant, who was the head of the Mapo-gu Housing Office having jurisdiction over this point twice, with the meal twice as stated in its holding. In light of the following: (a) the duty content of Nonindicted Party 1 at the time of being lawfully admitted and investigated by the evidence, his duty relationship with the Defendant, the fact that there was no special relationship between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1; and (b) the details and timing of giving and receiving the benefits, it is sufficient to deem such benefit as a bribe related to Nonindicted Party 1’s duty; and (c) it cannot be deemed as a mere within the scope of

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the other grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. On the second ground for appeal

This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit due to the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and thus, is not legitimate grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)