2017Do1177 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a bribe recognized)

name: Acceptance of bribe, and Acceptance of Bribe

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm B

Attorney C, D, IF, IG, IH

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No2315 Decided January 13, 2017

October 25, 2018

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to each of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have maintained the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant of the instant conjunctive facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds that the Defendant provided advice and other services using the status of a public official belonging to the Ministry of Government Legislation and received bribe. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent and object of the crime of acceptance of bribe, relevance to duties, admissibility of the statement, the principle of direct trial and the principle of direct deliberation, and the regulations on the operation of legislative affairs, etc., without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal differs from this case, and thus is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

The court below, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, held that the list 1 - 1 and 1 -2 of the daily list of crimes as indicated in the judgment below is concurrent crimes.

The judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) among the primary facts charged in the instant case, and upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime regarding the remaining primary facts charged and part of the ancillary facts charged in the instant case. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, the aforementioned judgment of the court below is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but the appellate brief did not state the grounds for appeal as to the guilty portion, nor does the appellate brief state the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min You-sook of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-hwan