Do 2015 Do 10898 A. Violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

Category B is partially recognized for Category B: Category 3

(i) Acceptance of bribe;

B. Violation of the Public Official Election Act

(c) Offering a bribe;

1. (a) and (b);

A

2.(a)(b)

B

3.(b).

A Q

4.(b)

R

Defendant A, B, Q and Prosecutor (Defendant B)

Law Firm Corporation (Limited) AU (private ship for Defendant A)

Attorney in charge KC, AV, AX, KD, KE

Attorney KF (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Attorney KG (private ships for Defendant B)

Attorney B (private ship for Defendant A Q)

Attorneys KH and KI (private ships for Defendant A Q)

KJ (Apon for Defendant Q) a legal entity

Attorney K in charge, K, KL

Gwangju High Court Decision 2014-422, 2015No 152 decided July 2, 2015 (Joint Judgment)

November 27, 2015

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant Q, which were submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting a statement of grounds of appeal, are within the scope of supplement to the grounds of appeal).

1. As to the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor, the court below found that among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in its ruling, the indictment of this case was acquitted on the following grounds: (i) the violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials due to the distribution of a gift on September 2013 to Defendant A; (ii) the violation of each Act on Punishment of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the distribution of a gift on September 2013 to Defendant B; (iii) the violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials due to the distribution of a gift on September 2013 to Defendant B; (iv) the violation of each Act on Punishment of Specific Crimes (excluding the guilty part); (v) the violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials to Defendant Q (excluding the guilty part); and (v) the violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials to Defendant Q and the violation of each Act on Punishment of Specific Crimes (excluding the part on conviction); and (v) the violation of each Act on Punishment of Aggravation.

Upon examining the record, the court below’s aforementioned determination is just. It does not constitute a legitimate ground for final appeal, because the court below violated the logic of logic and experience and violated the rule of law, thereby deviating from the limit of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding the relevant legal principles. (2) The argument that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the fact (excluding part of conviction) of violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials against Defendant AR in the original judgment, was made only on the ground of appeal that the prosecutor’s appeal is based on, or did not consider it as an object of the judgment by the court below ex officio. From the perspective of the record, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the original judgment.

2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the allegation to the effect that there was a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the point of violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials due to the act of donation on October 26, 2013 and the 29th day of the same month on October, 2013, or that there was an illegality of misapprehension of legal principles as to the point of violation of each Act on Election of Public Officials, does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal, since Defendant A’s grounds of appeal are asserted only on the grounds of appeal, or the lower court’s ex officio decision did not regard Defendant A as the subject of adjudication. In light of the record, there was no error of misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the allegation in the original judgment.

3. Examining the evidence that Defendant B’s appeal was duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant B’s appeal was found guilty of the third party bribe (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) among the facts charged in the instant indictment against Defendant B on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the lower court on the grounds as stated in the judgment. It is reasonable to have determined that the Defendant B was guilty of the charge of accepting the third party bribe (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal). In short, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on job relevance in the crime of accepting the third party Bribe, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal solicitation.

4. Examining the evidence that Defendant Q’s grounds for appeal were duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, the determination of the lower court, based on the same reasons as indicated in the judgment below, that the Defendant Q offered a bribe among the facts charged against Defendant Q of this case (excluding the portion of acquittal on the grounds of appeal), was justifiable. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on unjust solicitation under Article 130 of the Criminal Act, such as the lack of limits of free evaluation of evidence or the ability to provide evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on unjust solicitation under Article 130 of the Criminal Act.

Furthermore, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case of death penalty, imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, or imprisonment without prison labor, a final appeal against Defendant Q for the reason of unfair sentencing is allowed. The argument that Defendant Q is unfair in the amount of punishment in the instant case, which was sentenced to a more minor punishment, cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal.

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de