The meaning of “mediation of matters belonging to the duties of a public official” under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and in a case where the defendant concludes a business agreement with another person and conducts business activities against a public official, but the agreement merely has the form or appearance to facilitate the referral of the defendant, whether such act may be deemed an act of arranging another person’s affairs other than the defendant

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Supreme Court Decision 2000Do357 Decided June 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1717) Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2554 Decided April 29, 2010

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al.

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2012No244 decided April 9, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

“Good offices for matters belonging to the duties of public officials” under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refer to those for another person’s business other than the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do357, Jun. 11, 2002; 2010Do2554, Apr. 29, 2010). Thus, if the defendant entered into a partnership agreement with another person and carried out business activities against a public official to achieve the common purpose in the partnership relationship, it cannot be deemed as good offices for another person’s business. However, if the partnership agreement is merely with the form or appearance to facilitate the defendant’s good offices, it shall be deemed as good offices for the affairs of another person other than the defendant himself/herself.

The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged against Defendant 1 on the ground that it cannot be viewed as Defendant 1’s own business, on the ground that the patent use and the delegation contract and agreement between Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 2 are merely a formal agreement.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, misapprehending the legal doctrine on “other’s

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the remainder of the facts charged except for the facts charged against Defendants 2, 3, and 4 and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendants 1. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)