2012Do10429 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

A

Defendant

Law Firm AS

Attorney T, AT, AU

Attorney AW

Seoul High Court Decision 2012No800 Decided August 17, 2012

January 24, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

“Good offices” under Article 7 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refer to “an act of mediating or promoting convenience in raising funds or promoting convenience between a certain person and his/her other party with regard to a specific matter.” As such, not only a case where a certain person transfers the intent of solicitation to the other party as it is, but also an act of making solicitation on behalf of the other party. Therefore, if a certain person simply provides convenience to clients in connection with matters belonging to the duties of an executive or employee of a financial company and receives money as a consideration therefor, it cannot be said that money and valuables are given or received as to good offices for matters belonging to the duties of an executive or employee of a financial company. However, if it exceeds such a degree, a client directly contact with an executive or employee of a financial company in order to obtain money, such as receiving money and valuables, or requests a prompt progress, etc. of the fund to an executive or employee by using influence over such a specific matter, it shall be deemed that such act constitutes “an act of arranging or arranging matters belonging to such duties,” and if so, it shall be deemed that it constitutes an indivisible act of offering and receiving money and valuables.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s request for loan brokerage without specifying the financial institution by the request of the K to the President of the KR Bank, etc. who requested the loan intermediation and then caused the KR bank to promptly proceed with the loan procedures related to the instant business conducted by the K and to execute it constitutes an act of mediating or arranging matters belonging to the duties of the executives and employees of the financial company. Furthermore, the lower court collected the full amount of money received by the Defendant from KR after the Defendant’s request for loan intermediation and all of the L/R bank loans were implemented, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the amount received from KR is a quid pro quo relationship as a whole, as well as a quid pro quo relationship between L/L loans

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the consideration

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

Justices Kim Jae-sik et al.