[1] The criteria for determining the "brainness" and "duty-relatedness" in the crime of bribery

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that the defendant, who was in a position to exercise an official or de facto influence on all criminal investigations as the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, received US$ 20,000 from Gap, who was in a position to 3 to 4 times a year, was a bribe in relation to his duties

[1] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 129(1) and 134 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do378 delivered on April 17, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1368), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6721 Delivered on July 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2142) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178 Delivered on June 14, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5190 Delivered on February 14, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5657 Delivered on September 10, 2009

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Song-hun, Attorneys Song Jin-hun et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No2634 decided January 8, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

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 have acknowledged that the Defendant received USD 20,000 directly from the Nonindicted Party on July 28, 2007, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and the lower court did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules or by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society in which the non-purchase of the act of duties is the legal interest of the person directly, and it is not necessary to consider the violation of the duty or the existence of solicitation. Thus, a bribe is sufficient to receive a bribe in relation to the duties, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of the duty. When a public official receives money, valuables, or other benefits from a person who is the object of the duty, it is deemed that it is merely an exceptional price in light of the social norms, or it is clearly deemed that there is no relation with the duties unless there are special circumstances, such as the case where the public official received money in relation to the duties of a public official, or where it is clearly recognized that it is a personal-friendly relationship with the duties of a public official, and even if he received money and valuables in relation to the duties of a public official, it becomes a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do7276, Apr. 16, 199; 200Do3776, Jul. 26, 207, 2019).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's receipt of USD 20,00 from the non-indicted is a bribe in relation to his duties, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the defendant, as the chief of the National Police Agency, was in a position to exercise official or de facto influence on all criminal investigations through the authority to direct and supervise the police officers belonging to the National Police Agency and the chief of the national police agency; and (b) the non-indicted and the defendant started to form a friendly relationship only after he was appointed to the commissioner of the Gyeongnam Police Agency; and (c) the defendant was divided into three to four telephones for one year; and (d) the defendant received USD 20,00 from the non-indicted in relation to his duties. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is proper, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of the crime of bribery. The part of the grounds for appeal alleged in the grounds of appeal on grounds of

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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)