208Do5808 A. Bribery

(b) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

(Partially Accepted Crime : Acceptance of Bribery)

C. Acceptance of bribe

1.(c) Ray (Y)

Housing Ulsan EITE ITE DE

Standard place of registration:

2. 77.214 (a) and p

Bllsan SDR DES LITTE LITE

Standard place of registration:

Defendants

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly for Defendant Kim)

Law Firm (For the sake of Defendant Company)

Attorney Kim Kim, Lee-chul, and Park

Busan High Court Decision 18. 2008No1444 decided June 12, 2008

September 25, 2008

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the calculation of 90 days in the calculation of the number of days of detention after the appeal; the number of days of detention before the judgment in which the first instance has been included in the calculation of the term of punishment; and the number of days remaining after the calculation of the

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendant Company’s ground of appeal

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the Defendant Company as it is, after finding facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly examined and adopted, recognized that the Defendant Company, as the head of the Gun, received money and valuables from the Defendant Kim, the Co-Defendant Company of the court of first instance, the lowest Co-Defendant of the court of first instance, and Kim as stated in its holding, and accepted the bribe in relation to his duties.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, we affirm the lower court’s fact-finding and determination as justifiable.

As alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence, and therefore, it did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence selection or fact-finding as a fact-finding court. The ground of appeal pointing this out cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. As to Defendant Kim Jong-soo’s ground of appeal

Bribery does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribery of money and valuables received because the fairness of performance of duties, trust in society, and the impossibility of the act of performance of duties is protected by the law, and there is no need to make a solicitation or unlawful act in relation to the duties, and it is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in relation to the duties, and each act of performance of duties and a quid pro quo.

There is no need for a guidance, and there is no need for a specific act. Furthermore, the issue of which profit obtained by a public official is an unfair profit in a quid pro quo-related relationship with a public official, shall be determined in consideration of various circumstances such as the contents of the public official’s duty, the relationship between the duty and the provider of the profit, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, the degree of interest and the situation and time of receiving the profit, and the process and time of receiving the profit. In light of the fact that the bribery is the process of performing the duty, trust in the society, and the non-purchase of the act of performing the duty, the issue of whether the public official is doubtful of the fairness of performing the duty from the general public due to receiving the benefit is the basis for the determination of the nature of the bribery (see Supreme Court Decision 1

21. Supreme Court Decisions 99Do4940 Decided April 27, 2007; 2005Do4204 Decided April 27, 2007.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted Defendant Kim, recognizing that Defendant Kim offered a bribe of KRW 200 million in total with respect to the duties of Defendant Kim Jong-gun, based on the evidence duly examined and adopted.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, we affirm the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment as justifiable.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the duty relationship of bribery as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Cha Han-sung

Justices Shin Hyun-chul

Justices Kim Ji-hyung of the District Court

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn