The meaning of "in the name of solicitation or good offices" and "conciliation" under Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act / Standard for determining whether there is a quid pro quo or relationship between the money received and good offices

Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7050 Decided April 14, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 833) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3600 Decided June 28, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1195) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117 Decided January 31, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 342) Supreme Court Decision 2014Do16274 Decided April 23, 2015 (Gong2016Do15470 Decided January 12, 2017)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 2017No1037 Decided January 12, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 111(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that an act of receiving money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits is punished under the pretext of soliciting or arranging a case or affairs handled by a public official, and the phrase “concept or arranging” refers to “concept or arranging a good or arranging a good,” (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do7050, Apr. 14, 2006; 2005Do7050, Apr. 14, 2006; 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008; 2014Do16274, Apr. 23, 2015).” means “concept or arranging a good,” and “concept or promoting a good, good offices or convenience between any person and the other party regarding a certain matter” includes cases where the good offices are subject to past, or where the good offices are given under the pretext of good offices, a crime is established regardless of whether the good offices was actually conducted (see, etc.

However, money and valuables, etc. shall be given under the pretext of solicitation or good offices, and whether there exists a quid pro quo or relationship between good offices and money and money should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of good offices, pro rata relationship between good offices and benefit providers, details and timing of giving and receiving benefits (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3600, Jun. 28, 2007; 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017, etc.).

The lower court reversed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty on the charges of this case on the ground that there was no proof of crime, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s reasoning is unclear, but the lower court’s conclusion is acceptable. In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)