2013Do6089 Acceptance of bribe

1. A;

2. B

Defendant B and Prosecutor (Defendant A)

AP Law Firm (for Defendant B)

Attorney A Q

Law Firm G (for Defendant B)

Attorney H, AV, AW, AX

Seoul High Court Decision 2012No4067 Decided May 10, 2013

September 12, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

A. Even in a case where the Defendant, who was considered as a bribe in the crime of bribery, denies the fact of the acceptance of the bribe at the time of the acceptance of the bribe, and there is no evidence, such as financial materials to support the acceptance of the bribe, if it is judged that there is credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt in the contents of the bribe at the time of examining the reasonableness, objective reasonableness, consistency in the contents of the statement itself, as well as its human beings, and the interests gained from the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15986, Feb. 10, 201). Furthermore, the crime of bribery is established only with the statement of the witness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15986, Feb. 10, 201). Since the benefit and protection of the law is the process of the performance of official duties of the public official, and it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act related to his duties, it does not require any special solicitation to recognize the acceptance of the bribe.

B. The court below found Defendant B guilty of the charge of bribery charges against Defendant B, on the grounds the following grounds: (a) Defendant B received a bribe in return for a solicitation, such as accepting the case where the case was conducted by giving and taking advantage of the consistency in L’s statement that Defendant B offered a bribe, objective facts and circumstances consistent with the statement, and L’s false statement, etc.; (b) Defendant B received a bribe in return for a solicitation, such as requesting the occurrence of the case, and (c) Defendant B received a bribe in the case where M of police officers belonging to the N District Unit of the Gangnamnam Police Station N District was a general manager of the patrol team in the patrol 4, and provided information related to the crackdown from the owners of various illegal businesses within the jurisdiction of the patrol team and controlled the business; and (d) received the case totaling KRW 10 million each month and distributed it to the patrol team police officers belonging to Defendant B through M; and (e) Defendant B received money and valuables through M.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, including the duly admitted evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of bribery and joint principal offense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. [In the supplemental appellate brief for Defendant B, the lower court,

However, according to the record, the prosecutor's withdrawal evidence pointed out by the above defendant is AU's statement (Evidence No. 14, 318 pages of the evidence record) and the evidence adopted by the court below is not only the investigation report (Evidence No. 211 attached to AU statement) (Evidence No. 14, 317 pages of the evidence record) but also the AU's statement. Thus, the above argument is not accepted.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless there is such proof, the conviction cannot be judged even against the defendant even if there is a suspicion of guilt (Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001; 2006.

3. 9. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided 2005

B. The court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case against Defendant A on the ground that it is not sufficient to recognize the facts charged of bribery on June 2007 against Defendant A and that there was a possibility of transfer, not around 2007, on the following grounds: (1) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A received a bribe from Defendant M and M, a police officer, in return for a request to receive personnel status and rating or job convenience; and (2) the facts charged that Defendant A received a bribe from Defendant A around August 2006, the statute of limitations has already expired; and (2) L had the possibility of delivering money and valuables to Defendant A, not around June 2007, on the grounds that the time when the money and valuables were delivered to Defendant A was delivered to Defendant A.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on bribery, such as the receipt of money and valuables, and duties

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young