[1] The meaning of "documents pertaining to duties" in the crime of preparing false official documents and the method of determining such documents

[2] The case holding that a supply inspection report and a goods inspection statement prepared by a professor of a Do university in relation to a supply inspection as the head of the specialized project team constitute "official document" as a document prepared by a public official within his/her authority and authority

[3] The standard for determining whether the profit acquired by a public official constitutes "bral property"

[1] Article 227 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 227 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do670 Decided May 31, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1602) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1420 Decided June 15, 2006 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 99Do4940 Decided January 21, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 530) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4737 Decided February 24, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 554) (Gong2005Do4204 Decided April 27, 2007)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Park Ho-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No1249 decided May 25, 2007

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the preparation of a false official document

Documents related to the duties of a public official in the preparation of a false public document refers to documents prepared by the public official within his authority, and whether a specific act falls under the duties of a public official shall be determined by taking into consideration the practical aspects of whether it is reasonably necessary in relation to the duties to be performed by the public official together with the formal aspects that it was made as part of a public official (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do3401, Apr. 14, 1995; 2001Do670, May 31, 2002, etc.).

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment below, the specialized project team of the Do ○○ University is an organization organized separately from the industrial cooperation team when the above university carries out specialized projects in cooperation with industrial enterprises, etc., and the delivery prosecutor who is the professor of the above university belongs to the defendant's authority and authority, which is the public educational official, and thus, the supply inspection report and the goods inspection statement prepared by the defendant in relation to the above supply inspection constitute a public document as a document prepared by the public official within the official authority. In light of the above legal principles, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject and authority

2. As to the acceptance of bribe

Since the legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the public trust in society, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established when the number of money received from the public official's duties and the public official's money is in quid pro quo, and there is no need to consider the existence of a solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship for each individual duties. Whether a certain profit acquired by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unjust profit with a quid pro quo relationship should be determined taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official's duties, the relationship between a job and a benefit provider, whether there is a special relationship between a private person and a two parties, the difference of profit, the process and timing of receiving the benefit, etc. In light of the fact that the legal interest is the fairness of performing the duties, social trust in the performance of duties, and the impossibility of a public official's act of performing the duties is the legal interest to be protected, the issue of whether the bribe is suspected of the fairness of performing the duties by the public official due to the receipt of the benefit is the basis for determining the nature of the crime of bribery (see, etc.).

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment below, the court below held that the money that the defendant received from Mesco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Mesco") as a professor of the above university constituted a bribe, where the defendant, a public educational official, entered into a service contract for industrial human resources development with ○○ University, ○ University, Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (IMT-Map, Inc.) in the course of performing duties such as request for the conclusion of the service contract, supply inspection, etc. as the director of the specialized project of the above university of this case, and received the service payment early. In light of the above legal principles, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to job relationship or the consideration relation in the crime of bribery.

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 Young-chul (Presiding Justice)