The meaning of "public official taking advantage of his status" in the crime of mediation and bribery.

In the crime of mediation and bribery under Article 132 of the Criminal Code, the term "public official taking advantage of his/her status" shall not be deemed to be a case where he/she uses private relations, such as friendship and kinship, but in cases where a public official uses his/her status which is legally or factually affected in the process of affairs handled by another public official, it constitutes a case where he/she uses his/her status, and there is no need for a special relationship

Article 132 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Gwangju High Court Decision 93No4 delivered on April 2, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The ninety days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel (a resignation and a state appointed defense counsel prior to the revocation of a decision on appointment) shall also be deemed grounds for appeal. The supplemental appellate brief shall be deemed to the extent it supplements the grounds for appeal

1. In light of the records of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, we affirm the reasoning of the judgment below which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing

2. In the crime of mediation of bribery under Article 132 of the Criminal Code, the term "public official taking advantage of his status" cannot be deemed to be a case where he uses a private relationship such as friendship and kinship, but where a public official legally or practically affected the affairs handled by another public official uses his status, it constitutes a case where he uses his status and there is no special relationship such as a superior relationship, cooperative relationship, and supervisory authority (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do665 delivered on August 10, 190). Thus, as determined by the court below, if the defendant was a military viewing D for the defendant's work as determined by the court below, and had been in a position to exercise de facto influence over the above C's duties, it can be recognized that the court below recognized that the defendant accepted the above C's duties by taking advantage of his status to the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of mediation or bribery.

Although the fact-finding of the court below that a public official and the defendant were concurrently engaged in F from June 15, 1990 to June 19, 199, since it is not necessarily required to work with the same department in order to exercise de facto influence over matters belonging to other public officials' duties, it can be recognized that the defendant was also in a position to exercise de facto influence over the above C in this case, since it is not necessarily necessary for the public official to work with the same department, it shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

The precedents pointing out in theory are inappropriate in this case.

3. According to the facts established by the court below, for a corporation G to transfer the land of this case to H, the procedure is complicated by submitting an application for consent to transfer to military viewing by the Location Deliberation Committee for deliberation, and there is no guarantee that transfer or takeover is possible. Thus, instead of taking the approval procedure for transfer or takeover of the land of this case, the defendant decided with non-indicted 1, etc. to promptly complete the procedure for transfer or takeover of the land of this corporation by obtaining approval for modification of business plan with the content of changing the name of the above C merely from the above C, instead of taking the approval procedure for transfer or takeover of the land of this case, and the defendant provided good offices for modification of name or other consent to change of business plan. Thus, such good offices include the purport that the procedure for transfer or takeover of the land of this case should be allowed, without permission for change of the name of the company, instead of taking the procedure for approval of transfer or takeover of the land of this case. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment below's decision that the defendant's act of receiving a bribe to this purport constitutes an alteration of acceptance of bribery.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss all.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)