In a case where Gap representative director of the musical hall producer Gap of the musical hall determined to be a public performance exhibition of the Ansan Culture and Arts Complex, paid food value equivalent to 246,00 won (49,200 won per person) with public officials in charge of public performance-related affairs belonging to the Ansan Culture and Arts Complex, and the head of the affiliated institution notifies the court of the request for the imposition of administrative fines on the ground that the act of providing and receiving food was in violation of the Act on the Improper Solicitation and the Prohibition of Receiving Money and Valuables, etc., the case holding that the act of providing food constitutes an act of receiving or providing money and valuables for public officials, etc. related to duties prohibited under Article 8 (2) and (5) of the same Act, and imposes an administrative fine equivalent to two times the value of money and valuables received or provided to the violator, etc.

In a case where the representative director of the musical hall Gap, who was decided by the public performance production of the musical hall of Ansan Culture and Arts, paid food value of 246,00 won (49,200 won per person) with public officials in charge of performing duties related to the performance of the musical hall belonging to Ansan Culture and Arts Complex, the Mayor of the institution to which he belongs is in violation of the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and Solicitation, etc. (hereinafter “Improper Solicitation and Graft Prohibition Act”), and notifies the court of the request for the imposition of administrative fines, the case holding that considering the fact that the purpose of the Act on the Prohibition of Solicitation and Solicitation is to ensure fairness in performing duties through the prohibition of receiving money and other valuables, etc., the determination of business relationship is based on whether the person is suspected of being fair in performing duties from the social general public due to the number of money and other valuables such as public officials, etc., since it is sufficient to view that there is business relationship in light of the status, personal relations, details of duties, timing of provision, etc., the act of providing food constitutes an act of receiving or providing money and other money and other valuables.

Articles 8(2) and (5), 23(5)1 and 23(5)3, and 24 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act;

Offenders 1 and 3 others

1. Any offender and any offender shall be punished by a fine for negligence of 100,000 won;

2. Any offender, or any offender, shall be punished by a fine for negligence of 200,000 won.

1. Facts of recognition;

The record reveals the following facts.

A. The offender 1 (person in charge of performance planning), the offender 2 (the head of the stage arts team) is a public official belonging to the Ansan Culture and Arts Complex affiliated with the Ansan-si, and the Andong Culture and Arts Complex has decided that the Federation of the Korean Culture and Arts Center (hereinafter “offender 4”) produced a group of 4 stock companies (hereinafter “offender 4 companies”) selected as an excellent performance program as a public performance, and the offender 3 is the representative director of the company that committed the offense.

B. Around November 19, 2016, the day before the performance of the “○○○○○○○,” the offender 1, 2, 3, 3 of the offender, and Nonparty 1 (employee belonging to Nonparty 2, the operator of the same culture and arts, etc.), and Nonparty 3 of the same offense (employee belonging to Nonparty 1, the operator of the same culture and arts, etc.), around November 4, 2016, the day before the performance of the “○○○○○○,” ○○○○○○. Around November 19, 200, the offender 3 of the offense paid the total amount of food worth KRW 246,00 (per person’s 49,20

C. In relation to this, the border-do investigated the violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (hereinafter “Improper Solicitation and Graft Act”), and the head of the Dong-dong market, the head of which is the head of the agency concerned, deemed that the act of receiving and providing food by the offender violates Article 8(2) and (5) of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, and notified this court of the request for the imposition of an administrative fine on January 4, 2017 pursuant to Article 23(7) of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

2. Relevant statutes;

The main contents of the Improper Solicitation and Prohibition Act in relation to the instant case are as follows:

(2) No public official, etc. shall receive, request or promise any money, goods, etc. not exceeding the amount prescribed in paragraph (1), regardless of whether it is a quid pro quo or not, or any name thereof, in connection with his/her duties. (4) No public official, etc. shall receive, request or promise any money, goods, etc. which are prohibited from receiving by any public official, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) (hereinafter referred to as "money, goods, etc. prohibited from receiving") in connection with his/her duties. No person shall provide any money, goods, etc. prohibited from receiving by any public official, etc. or his/her spouse to any public official, etc., or promise or promise to provide such money, goods, etc. prohibited from receiving by any public official, etc. or his/her spouse.

3. Determination

A. Whether Article 8(2) and (5) of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act are violated

According to Article 8(2) of the Improper Solicitation and Solicitation Act, public officials, etc. shall not receive, request, or promise money, goods, etc. below the amount prescribed in paragraph (1), regardless of whether they are quid pro quo in connection with their duties. According to Article 8(5) of the Improper Solicitation and Solicitation Act, anyone shall not provide any money, goods, etc. prohibited from receiving or receiving to public officials, etc.

In this case, it is sufficient to view that there is a relationship of business relationship in light of the offender’s status, personal relationship, details of business, timing of provision, etc. of food provided by the offender, who is the public official in charge of performance-related business, and the offender 2, who is the representative director of the 4 company, who is the producer of the ○○○○○○○, which is performed at the performance hall of Ansan Culture and Arts. Therefore, the act of providing the food in this case constitutes an act of receiving or providing prohibited money and valuables for public officials, etc. related to business prohibited under Article 8(2) and (5) of the Act on the Prohibition of Solicitation and Arts.

Therefore, the offender is judged to have violated Article 8 (2) and (5) of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

(b) Amount of administrative fines;

Article 23(5)1 and 3 of the Improper Solicitation and Solicitation Act stipulate that administrative fines of an amount equivalent to two to five times the value of money, valuables, etc. related to the act of violation shall be imposed. The detailed amount of money, valuables, etc. shall be determined in full consideration of the contents and degree of duties relationship of public officials, etc., personal relations between the parties to whom the money, valuables, etc. are given, personal relations between the parties to whom the money, valuables, etc. are given and received, type and value of

In the violation of this case, the act of receiving or providing the food of this case constitutes 49,200 won exceeding 30,000 won as stipulated in Article 17 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Improper Solicitation and Aid Act, and thus it is difficult to view the amount as the food provided for the purpose of smooth performance of duties or private intercourse or assistance, which is an exception to the prohibited money and valuables, etc. provided under Article 8(3)2 of the Improper Solicitation and Aid Act. However, the violator 1 is asserting that he was in dental treatment at the time, and he did not drink until after the end of food to take the child, and left the middle place. The violation 2 is asserting that the above meal place ends, and 30 times the above meal place is calculated in cash (for the above argument, there is no objective material to acknowledge it), and since the 2000 times the above Improper Solicitation and Aid Act is still recognized as being 100 won or more as being 2000 won per one person who has committed the violation, each of the above 20000 won or more.

4. Conclusion

For the same reason, Article 23(5)1 and Article 8(2) of the Act on the Prohibition of Requests, and Articles 36 and 44 of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, and Articles 23(5)3, 8(5), and 24(4) of the Act on the Prohibition of Requests shall be determined in accordance with Article 23(5)3, 8(5), and 24 of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order, and Articles 36 and 44 of the Act on the Regulation of Violations of Public Order.

Judges Cha Gyeong-hwan