2013, 1425 A. Acceptance of bribe

(b) Offering of bribe;

1. A.

2.2.B

Main commercial use, and dathere trial;

Attorney C (for the defendant A)

Law Firm D, Attorneys E (Defendant B)

March 27, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months and by a fine of up to three million won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for up to four months.

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant A and the above sentence against Defendant B shall be suspended.

A 7.160,00 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

Criminal History Office

On February 1, 2013, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for the offering of bribe, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of private documents at the Seoul Central District Court on February 1, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 18, 2013.

1. Defendant A

Defendant A served with the Seocho-gu Office F from January 22, 2005 to August 20, 2010, and was in charge of the general affairs of Seocho-gu Office F from July 1, 2008 to August 20, 2010. Defendant A, on June 29, 2008 (the fact of prosecution is indicated as October 24, 2008. However, the contract was concluded on June 29, 2008 between Seocho-gu Office and Defendant B among the supply contracts concluded on 14 occasions between Defendant A and the Seocho-gu Office, and thus, the Seocho-gu Office supplied various goods related to the exercise of KRW 93,864,300 over 14 times from Defendant B.) to January 13, 2010.

On July 24, 2008, Defendant A received 1.6 million won from the bank account (Account Number J) in the name of Defendant B to the new bank account (Account NumberJ) in the name of Defendant B from July 24, 2008 and received a bribe of five hundred and sixty hundred thousand won from that time until June 29, 2010, in response to Defendant B’s solicitation that “the supply of goods may continue to exist” from Defendant B, and received a bribe of five hundred and sixty hundred thousand won from that time to June 29, 2010.

2. Defendant B

As described in the above paragraph (1), Defendant B remitted a total of 7,160,000 won from July 24, 2008 to July 29, 2008, and offered a bribe in relation to the public official’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The second written statement of the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution against the defendant B (including the part concerning the defendant A's substitute);

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol regarding H;

1. Entry in an investigation report (in addition to the name B B B B H account transactions);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Statement of investigation report (Attachment to the judgement of suspect K, B, and L-related cases);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, the choice of imprisonment)

B. Defendant B: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Imposition of fines concurrently;

Defendant A: Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (However, the amount of the accepted bribery, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of fine, shall be limited to the amount received after December 26, 2008, which was newly established and enforced (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4260, Jun. 10, 201))

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A: the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and Defense Counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant A did not receive the express solicitation from Defendant B that it would be possible to deliver goods. Examining the content of the receipt of the goods from Defendant A, the receipt of money was made before Defendant B supplied goods to the Seocho-gu Office via Defendant A, and no receipt of money was made for the year 2009 that Defendant B supplied goods on seven occasions. Defendant A, who was in charge of the exercise-related work of the Seocho-gu Office, handled part of the cost of various events with one’s own money, and was unable to be compensated by the Seocho-gu Office, at the request of Defendant B, who was in close friendship with Defendant B, used it as the event cost or operation cost, and did not use it individually. In light of the absence of such explicit solicitation, the time of the delivery of goods and the use of the money, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A received the money from Defendant B in return for the performance of duties.

2. Determination

A. Bribery is a legal interest directly protected by the law in the process of performing duties and the trust of the society, and does not require any solicitation or unlawful act in relation to duties. Therefore, in recognizing the bribe of money and valuables received, there is no need to consider whether there exists a solicitation, whether there is a specific act of duties, a quid pro quo relationship between an individual act of duties, and a time of receiving money and that of performing duties, and there is no need to consider before and after the act of receiving money and valuables. If the number of money received from a public official’s duties and money is in quid pro quo, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3579, Oct. 12, 2001; 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003; 2010Do13584, Dec. 23, 2010).

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant A’s KRW 7.16 million received from Defendant B can be sufficiently recognized as a bribe that is received in connection with his/her duties. The above assertion by the Defendant A and the defense counsel is not accepted.

① From the end of June 2008, Defendant A had been in charge of the event-related affairs at the F Team with the Seocho-gu Office F. From around 1994, Defendant A, who had been in a friendly relationship with Defendant A, requested Defendant A to deliver goods related to the event that Defendant A had been in charge of the event-related affairs as above, and Defendant A requested Defendant A to deliver the goods related to the event that Defendant A operated. When the event-related goods are needed, Defendant A provided a written estimate from Defendant B and written a written statement of the draft attached to the other delivery company, which entered a supply price higher than the supply price of G, and obtained approval.

Defendant A asserts that there was no explicit request from Defendant B related to the above delivery. However, Defendant B, since the second prosecutorial investigation and the second prosecutorial investigation, Defendant A requested Defendant B to deliver goods to Defendant A after moving into the F Team with Seocho-gu FF and then paid KRW 7,160,000 in consideration of the request. Defendant A also received the above request from Defendant B during the second prosecutorial investigation conducted by Defendant B, and it is good to receive the goods from Defendant B rather than Defendant B, rather than Defendant B, rather than Defendant B. I stated that Defendant B could receive a contract.

③ From June 29, 2008 to January 13, 2010, G had the Seocho-gu Office deliver various event-related articles equivalent to KRW 93,864,300 via 14 times. Defendant A received KRW 7,160,00 in total five times as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Form B before and after the period of delivery.

④ In other words, from December 22, 2008 to January 13, 2010, G received various event-related goods equivalent to KRW 55,609,100 in total from Seocho-gu office nine times from the Seocho-gu office, the number of money was not paid among the Defendants. The sum of KRW 2,360,00,000, the sum of KRW 55,609,100, and June 29, 2010, was the sum of KRW 2,360,000,000.

However, in relation to this, Defendant A stated that the expenses for the event did not fall short of 2009 in the course of the re-examination conducted at the second prosecutorial investigation conducted against Defendant B, but the period of 2010 was insufficient, and again, Defendant A asked Defendant B to request money. In addition, in light of the above contents of the Defendants’ statement on the process of the supply of G and the receipt of money by Defendant A and the process of concluding a contract between G and Seocho-gu office, and the details of receipt of money between the Defendants, the overall quid pro quo relationship between Defendant A and the receipt of money can be acknowledged.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 1 (less than KRW 10 million)

[Scope of Imprisonment with labor] Imprisonment of four months to one year (basic area)

[Criteria for Suspension of Execution] Main reasons for major reference: positive - When the amount of bribe is less than 10 million won, the reason for general reference: there is no positive - there is no record of criminal punishment.

(b) Determination of sentence;

Defendant A received money from Defendant B and provided the contractual convenience to Defendant B in fact. Accordingly, it infringed the general public’s trust in terms of the fairness and infiniteness of public official’s duties. Nevertheless, Defendant A, who was investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office, was consistent with the vindication that Defendant A received the money borrowed from Defendant B while entering the false loan certificate with Defendant B until Defendant B made a confession.

However, the defendant A reflects his wrong conviction in depth and goes back. The defendant A does not have any criminal record.

In light of the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as per Disposition.

2. Defendant B

Defendant B provided money to Defendant A and actually received contractual convenience from Defendant A. Nevertheless, Defendant B provided the vindication that Defendant B paid money without obtaining false loan from Defendant A until the first instance judgment was rendered on the crime of offering of a bribe to an employee of another Seocho-gu Office for criminal facts.

However, Defendant B recognized all of the instant crimes and is in violation of depth. In addition, the instant crime of offering of bribe and the instant crime are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the equity between the instant crimes and the instant crimes should be considered.

In light of the above circumstances, all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined as per Disposition.

Freeboard of the presiding judge and judge

Judges Park So-young

Judges, Senior Superintendent-General