2017Do 12125 A. Preparation of false official documents

(b) Exercising official documents prepared in falsity;

(c) Acceptance of a bribe;

D. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

(e) Dried trees;

(f) Offering a bribe;

(g) Offering property in breach of trust;

1. (a). (b)

A

2. D. E.

B

3. D.

C

4. (f).

D

Prosecutor (as to Defendant B)

Law firm E (for Defendant A)

Attorney F in charge

legal entity (with limited liability) G (for Defendant B)

Attorney H in charge H, I

Attorney J, K (for Defendant C)

Corporation (Limited) L (for Defendant D)

Attorney M in charge, N

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Do3874 decided July 13, 2017

October 25, 2018

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. The receipt of a bribe by Defendant A and the receipt of a bribe by Defendant D to Defendant A

section 22.

(a) The responsibility for proving the facts of the offence against which the prosecution was instituted in a criminal trial is attributable to the prosecutor, who is guilty;

Recognizing that a judge is not likely to have reasonable doubt, and that the facts of the prosecution are true to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt

such a legal doctrine should be given and accepted by evidence of probative value as to which the conviction has been made.

The same applies to cases where the nature of money is disputed as to whether it is a bribe. Accordingly, the same applies to cases where money is received.

fact that this bribe is the nature of the money and that there is no room for this reasonable doubt; and

If there is no evidence of probative value that leads to a substantial conviction, the person guilty against the defendant even if there is no evidence of probative value.

Even if there is doubt as to the doubt, it is inevitable to determine the interest of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 11, 10 delivered on November 201, 201),

Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261 Decided August 30, 201, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6280 Decided August 30, 201, etc.

B. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment which found the facts of this part of the prosecution guilty and rendered a verdict of not guilty.

C. The reasons are 20 million won project funds received from Defendant A’s ASEAN 0,000 won

reasonable as to the fact that the capital offered as a bribe to Defendant A is not an investment

There is no proof to the extent that the doubt is excluded. In light of the above legal principles and records, the reasoning of the original judgment is without merit.

Examining the above determination by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and it is necessary at the same time as the argument of the grounds for appeal.

Having failed to fulfill all the rule of logic and experience, it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence against the rule of logic and experience.

B. There is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on bribe acceptance in the crime of bribery.

2. As to Defendant A’s preparation of a false official document and the display of a false official document

The judgment of the court below is without proof of a crime against this part of the facts charged for the same reasons as the judgment of the court below.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which rendered a judgment of not guilty, was maintained as it is. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is recorded.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above judgment of the court below is legitimate, and at the same time, the reasoning of the appeal is asserted as the grounds of appeal.

and against the rules of law of experience, the crime of preparing false official documents is committed beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence or against the limit of free evaluation of evidence

There is no error of misapprehending the legal principles.

3. Defendant B’s taking of trees, and Defendant D’s giving of property in breach of trust to Defendant B

section 22.

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the facts of this part of the prosecution guilty and rendered a verdict of not guilty.

The reason is that the defendant B received property or property gains from the defendant D, and the position of the defendant B.

There was a common perception or understanding among the defendants on the fact that it is a consideration for non-execution.

The reason for the judgment of the original court is that there is no proof to the extent that the court does not have any reasonable doubt as to the point.

B Examining in the light of the record, the above determination by the court below is justified, and the appeal is justified at this time.

In the same manner as this chapter, the court below erred by exceeding the limit of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules.

There is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles on "illegal solicitation" in the crime of accepting or re-influence in breach of trust.

4. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant B and the meaning of Defendant D

As to the offering of a bribe to Defendant B

A. In the case of a bribe, the fact that the consignee received money from the person who received the bribe is recognized, but the money is recognized.

B If the Bribery asserts that it was not received as a bribe, the Bribery may actually borrow the money.

Whether or not the acceptance of the bribe is made shall be the motive, reason and method for the acceptance of the bribe from the person who has received the bribe, and the person who has received the bribe.

between the receiver and the receiver, the position, occupation and career of both parties, the necessity of borrowing by the receiver and the trust.

(1) The possibility of borrowing funds from a person other than such person, the amount and volume of the borrowed funds, the economic condition and increase of the mineer;

The scale of economic anticipated profits related to the trust, whether collateral is provided, the due date and whether the interest is agreed, and the acceptance of the bribe.

evidence, such as whether the principal and interest has been repaid, the demand of the person who has been in default, and the possibility of compulsory enforcement;

all objective circumstances shown by the court must be determined by integrating all the objective circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 30 August 30, 2012).

Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6280 Decided September 30, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4386 Decided September 30, 201, etc.

B. The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of this part of the public prosecution and rendered a verdict of not guilty

The reason for this is that Defendant B’s son P received 40 million won from this Defendant D’s study abroad.

c) as to the fact that the money provided as a bribe to Defendant B is not borrowed in gold;

There is no proof to the extent that the original judgment is excluded from the doubt. The reasoning of the original judgment is based on the above legal doctrine and records.

In light of the reasoning of the appeal, the above judgment of the court below is legitimate and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The limit of free influence is contrary to the logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

There is no erroneous determination that the facts were true.

5. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) by Defendant C and the meaning of Defendant D

As to the giving of a bribe to Defendant C

A. The crime of accepting a bribe under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act is a public official who gives or receives a bribe in relation to his/her duties

section 130 of the Criminal Code as to the duties of a public official under this section.

shall be punished for the crime of offering a bribe to a third party in the event that a bribe is given to a third party in receipt of an illegal solicitation.

in light of the fact that there is a provision that a public official shall be a person who has received a bribe without being a public official's direct bribe.

in the case of having another person give a bribe to such other person, the person to whom such other person has become a public official; or

agent received a bribe, such as the case of receipt of the bribe, and such other person received the bribe.

section 129(1) of the Criminal Code only if it can be assessed as the public official directly received.

The crime of acceptance of bribe under subsection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3540, Jun. 23, 2016) is established.

B. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts charged as to this part of the prosecution.

C. The reasons are 100 million won from Korea Co., Ltd.

Defendant C directly received under the social common sense of financial interest derived from borrowing at interest-free, as the case may be.

It is difficult to evaluate the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the above legal doctrine and records. The reasoning of the original judgment is examined by the court below.

The above determination is legitimate, and is contrary to the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

There is no error in finding the facts beyond the limit of the State of Free Evaluation of Evidence.

6. As to Defendant D’s violation of trust against Q Q

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of this part of the public prosecution and rendered a verdict of not guilty.

C. The reason is that the money offered by Defendant D to Q is the consideration for this illegal solicitation.

In light of the record of the reasoning of the original judgment, the above judgment of the court below is made.

state of free evaluation against logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal at the same time.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on "illegal solicitation" in the crime of re-violation of breach of trust; or by misapprehending the legal principles on "illegal solicitation"

shall not be subject to this subsection.

7. Conclusion:

Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

the same judgment.

Justices Park Jung-hwa

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-soo