[1] The meaning of "duty" in the crime of bribery

[2] The standard for determining whether the profit acquired by a public official constitutes "brain"

[3] The case affirming the judgment below holding that the above act constitutes the crime of acceptance of bribe in a case where Defendant A, a Si urban planning director, received a request from Defendant B, who is a Si urban planning director, and received money from the said company for the part of the construction work he managed and supervised, and then received the money

[1] In the crime of bribery, the term "duty" includes not only the duty under the control of the law, but also the duty under the close relation with the duty, or the duty under the custom or the actual jurisdiction, and the duty under the control of the person who can assist or affect the person who made the decision.

[2] Whether a certain profit obtained by a public official is an unfair profit with a quid pro quo relation, shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents of the relevant public official’s duties, the relationship between a job and a benefit provider, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, the degree of profit and the circumstance and timing of receiving the profit, etc. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is protected by the legal interest protected by the law as the fairness of performing the duties, the trust in the society, and the non-purchase of the act of performing duties, the issue of whether a public official receives the benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties from the society due to the receipt

[3] In a case where Defendant A, a Si urban planning director, carried out the construction work of the Gu office of new construction and its adjacent thereto, which had been carried out by the Si office of new construction of the Si office of the Si office of the Si office of the Si to which Byung was a Si office of the Si office of the Si office of the Gu office of the Si, and Jung corporation’s management and supervision over the construction work of the extension of the building that had been carried out by Byung corporation as the Si office of the Si office of the Si office of the Si office of the Si, upon the request of Defendant B who was requested by the non-company of the Si office of the Si

[1] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 1(2), 129(1) and 133(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 (see current Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 7767, Dec. 29, 2005); Article 2(1)2 (see current Article 2(1)2 (see current Article 2(1)2 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9169, Dec. 26, 2008)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do2251 Decided May 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1439), Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10910 Decided December 23, 2010 (Gong2011Sang, 278), Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13584 Decided December 23, 2010 (Gong201Sang, 285) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5438 Decided September 18, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 2302), Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4204 decided April 27, 2007 (Gong2007, 8209Sang, 209Do48575 decided April 27, 2009)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Signature-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2010No2944 decided December 3, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

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

In the crime of bribery, the term "duty" includes not only a public official's duty under the control of the law, but also a public official's act closely related to his duty, or a duty under the custom or actual jurisdiction, and a duty that may assist or affect the decision-making authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do2251, May 10, 2002; 2010Do10910, Dec. 23, 2010). In addition, the issue of whether a public official's profit constitutes a bribe as an unfair benefit in a quid pro quo relationship, such as the contents of the public official's duty, the relationship between a job and a benefit provider, the degree of benefits, and the process and timing of receiving benefits, etc. In light of the legal interest protected by the law, the issue of whether the crime of bribery constitutes a bribe shall be determined in consideration of the fairness of the performance of duty, the social trust in relation to it, and the purchase of such duty, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1 worked as the head of Suwon City Planning Bureau and assist the city planning department with urban landscape and construction business, etc., overall control over the affairs of the city planning department to which the construction business office belongs; Defendant 1, through the construction business office, performs specific management and supervision of the Suwon-si Construction Corporation (hereinafter “new construction work of this case”); while Nonindicted Company 2, as the construction business office, performed the construction work of the new construction work of this case, with Nonindicted Company 1 as the construction business office, performed the construction work of the new construction work of this case at the site of the new construction work of this case; Defendant 1, who received money from the construction office of this case in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Building Act, etc.; Defendant 1, who received money from the construction office of this case for the extension of the new construction work of this case, was not able to receive money from the construction office of this case; and Defendant 1, who received money from the construction office of this case for the extension of the new construction work of this case from Nonindicted Party 200.

In addition, the gist of the remaining grounds of appeal alleged by the Defendants is nothing more than to criticize the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, or on the premise of facts different from those acknowledged by the lower court, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)