The meaning of “interest,” which is the substance of a bribe, and whether “fulfillment of sexual desire” is included in the interests which are the substance of a bribe (affirmative)

In the crime of bribery, profits which are the contents of a bribe include not only money, goods, and other property interests, but all tangible and intangible profits sufficient to satisfy human demand and desire, and the offer of them is not different from the fulfillment of sexual desire.

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3539 Decided November 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 279) Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6504 Decided August 23, 2012

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Park Gyeong-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 2013No1418 decided November 1, 2013

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

A. In the crime of bribery, the term “for the benefit of bribery” includes not only money, goods, and other property interests, but all tangible and intangible benefits sufficient to meet human demand and desire (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3539, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.). It does not mean that the offer is a fulfillment of sexual desire.

In addition, the legal interest of accepting bribery is the process of performing the duties of a public official, the trust in the society, and the uncertainty of the act of performing his duties, and there is no special solicitation to recognize the bribe of the received money and valuables, since it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act in connection with his duties. In addition, it is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in connection with his duties, and there is no need to have an individual act or a quid pro quo relationship, and when a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his duties, it cannot be deemed that there is no relation with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is deemed that such money and valuables are merely an equivalent cost in light of social norms, or where it is clearly recognized that a private pro rata relationship is due to the need for decentralization. If a public official received money and valuables in connection with his duties, even if he received them, such money and valuables shall be a bribe (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3579, Oct. 12, 201).

On the other hand, 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 excess profit, the circumstances and timing of receiving benefits, etc. In light of the fact that the bribery is the process of performing his duties and the trust in society and the impossibility of purchasing the said act, the issue of whether a public official’s receiving benefit is doubtful of the fairness of performing his duties and the fairness of performing his duties from the general society is also the standard for determining whether the crime of bribery is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1797, Mar. 24, 2011, etc.).

B. Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, it is justifiable for the court below to find that the act of similarity and sexual intercourse in this case constitutes "brain" on the grounds as stated in its holding and to find the defendant guilty of the bribery among the facts charged in this case by recognizing the duty relationship. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duty relationship, price relationship, and intentional intent in the bribery.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court is acceptable to have acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime regarding abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights among the facts charged. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acknowledgement of facts in violation

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 Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)