(영문) 대법원 2015.11.12.선고 2015도12834 판결

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the receipt of merchandise coupons around August 2013 to September 9, 2013, and around December 2013, 2013, the bribery is sufficient to have received money in connection with the performance of duties, and the act of individual duties and quid pro quo.

There is no need for guidance, and when a public official receives money, valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his duties, in light of the social norms, it shall not be deemed that there is no connection with his duties, unless there are special circumstances, such as the case where it is deemed that the public official is merely an equivalent consideration in light of the social norms, or where it is clearly recognized that his personal relationship is due to the need for the division of society. If a public official received money and valuables in relation to his duties, even if he received money and valuables from a person subject to his duties, such money and valuables shall be a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 200, Jan. 1

21. Supreme Court Decisions 99Do4940 Decided October 12, 2001; 2001Do3579 Decided October 12, 2001.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable in holding that the lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, cited various circumstances recognized by the first instance court, and, on August 8, 2013, around September 9, 2013, and around December 2, 2013, gift certificates received from department stores on two occasions constituted a bribe having the nature of consideration for job performance beyond the scope of private precedents. 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, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the burden of proof in the crime of bribery, consideration

2. As to the ground of appeal on the receipt of cash

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to reverse the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on September 16, 2013, and to have convicted the Defendant of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to cash circulation of KRW 10 million among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and to have convicted the Defendant of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the remaining cash circulation. 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 in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. Conclusion

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