2020 Highest 563 A. Acceptance of bribe

(b) Offering of bribe;

1.(a) A (67-1), public officials;

2.(a) B (59-1) and (former officials)

3.(b) C (67-1)

March 9, 2021

Defendant A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year for Defendant A and B, and for two years for Defendant C.

Probation of Defendant C and community service for 120 hours shall be ordered.

One copy (No. 1) of the seized cosmetic entry book shall be confiscated from Defendant C.

60,000 won from Defendant A and 779,90 won from Defendant B shall be collected respectively.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of accepting bribe against Defendant A and B on April 18, 2017 and the charge of offering bribe against Defendant C on April 18, 2017 shall be acquitted, respectively.

The summary of each judgment of innocence shall be published against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Personal Relations of Defendants

① 피고인 A은 ㉠ 1991. 8. 27. ○○시 □□□관리사업소에 지방환경연구사로 채용된 이래, ㉡ 2011. 9. 16.부터 2016. 7. 18.까지 ▣▣시 ■■■■사업본부 ‘▲▲운영과’ 및 ●●과에서 근무하고, ㉢ 2016. 7. 19.부터 2018. 10. 21.까지 ▣▣시청 복지환경국 환경과 ◉◉관리담당 공무원으로 근무하면서 수질 개선 제재 구입계약의 체결 업무를 맡은1) 사람이고, ② 피고인 B은 ㉠ 1983. 8. 30. ▣▣시 건설국 도시과에 지방고용원으로 채용된 이래, ㉡ 위 2011. 9. 16.부터 2013. 12. 19.까지 ▣▣시 ■■■■사업본부 ‘▲▲운영과장’으로 근무하고, ㉢ 2017. 2. 20.부터 2018. 1. 4.까지 ▣▣시 ■■■■사업본부 ‘□□□운영과장’으로 근무하며, ㉣ 2018. 1. 5.부터 2019. 12. 31.까지 4급인 ▣▣시 지방기술서기관으로 근무하다가 위 2019. 12. 31. 공무원에서 퇴직한 사람이다.

한편 피고인 C는 의왕시에 사무소가 있다는 ‘甲바이오’라는 상호나 ▣▣시에 사무소가 있다는 ‘甲바이오북부사업소’ 내지 의왕시에 사무소가 있다는 ‘甲바이오코리아’라는 상호로 수질정화 및 악취제거 관련 제품을 납품하는 각 개인 업체의 ‘대표’ 즉 실운영자이다.

Criminal facts

1. Acceptance of bribe against Defendant A

피고인은 ㉮ 2017. 8. 9.경 ▣▣시에 있는 ▣▣시청 구내식당 앞 도로에서 위 각 업체 운영자인 공동피고인 C로부터 ‘관청이 수질개선용 미생물 제재를 구입하는 데에 대한 수의계약의 납품 당사자로 선정되게 해 달라.’는 취지의 청탁 명목으로 구입가격 20,000원2) 상당의(증거기록 제468쪽 참조) 화장품 1세트를 교부받고, ㉯ 2017. 8. 28.경 ▣▣시에 있는 피고인의 집에서 택배를 통하여 같은 명목으로 위 C로부터 구입가격 40,000원 상당의 위 화장품 세트 2개를 교부받았다.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

2. The acceptance of bribe against Defendant B

피고인은 2017. 9. 4.경 ▣▣시에 있는 피고인의 집에서 위 C로부터 ‘관청이 수질 개선용 미생물 제재를 구입하는 데에 대한 수의계약의 납품 당사자로 선정되게 영향력을 행사해 달라.’는 취지의 청탁 명목으로 시가 779,900원(= 720,000원 + 59,900원) 상당의 65인치 TV3) 및 사운드바4)를 교부받았다.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

3. The offering of each bribe by Defendant C

피고인은 ㉮ 제1항 기재 일시, 장소에서 위와 같은 명목으로 ▣▣시 담당 공무원인 위 A에게 2회에 걸쳐 합계 60,000원 상당의 화장품 세트를 교부해주고, ㉯ 제2항 기재 일시, 장소에서 위와 같은 명목으로 ▣▣시 공무원인 위 B에게 위 779,900원 상당의 TV와 사운드바를 설치하여 교부해주었다.

Accordingly, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the duties of each public official.

Summary of Evidence

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act [Generally, Article 129(1) [Article 129(1) [Article 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act can be deemed to have been prosecuted as “real concurrent crimes” by stating “Article 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act” in the column for applicable provisions of the Criminal Act relating to this part of the indictment, but considering that the timing, interval, and name of the bribe delivery can be deemed to be adjacent and similar, the unity and continuity of the criminal intent of the Defendant can be recognized, and the method of the crime can be deemed to be the same. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that each acceptance of the criminal defendant’s decision constitutes a crime more favorable (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4862, Feb. 11, 200)]

B. Defendant B: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

C. Defendant C: Articles 133(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; each choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty heavier than the penalty for offering of bribe to the above B)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant C: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act; Article 59(1) of the Probation, etc. Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant C: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Additional collection:

Defendant A and B: The latter part of Article 134 of each Criminal Code (absent that could be seen as having been consumed by using cosmetics set forth by Defendant A in light of the date of the crime committed by a State or a local government, and the number of years of use of TV and Round set up in the house of Defendant B was more than three years and six months since the long period of time, it can be deemed as an impossible time to confiscate).

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to five years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

【Determination of Punishment】

Bribery crime: Acceptance of bribe (type 1) less than 10 million won

【Special Convicted Persons】

- Mitigation elements: If the degree of participation or actual amount of profit is extremely minor (this subparagraph applies in favor of the defendant)

【General Convicts】

- Reduction element: If the degree of participation or actual amount of profit is minor;

- Aggravationd elements: where business relations are high;

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Reduction Area, January 6

(c) Determination of sentence: Six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence;

1) Co-defendant C demanded an increase of 10% on the condition that Co-Defendant C supplied “in the presence of his employees.” Whether it is too excessive or not, can be said that there was a little speech, and in light of this, the non-purchase of the official act of the public official infringed upon by the Defendant’s crime of this case and the decline in social confidence in the fair performance of official duties by the public official.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, who had been aware of approximately KRW 300,00 per piece of cosmetic set on the ground that the price of the cosmetics set forth in the judgment exceeds the level of private will, had been recognized as being above approximately 300,000 won per piece of cosmetic. Accordingly, the Defendant, who was in line with the aforementioned D and F’s consistent statement and consistent therewith, did not appear to be “a father to commit the instant crime without any justifiable grounds despite the existence of objective materials such as text messages and books.” Accordingly, the Defendant could be said to have never committed any serious reflection to the extent to restrain recidivism.

Considering the above points, the responsibility of the defendant is heavy.

2) However, on the other hand, the defendant can only be deemed to have a record of being punished by a fine in 198 for traffic accidents, and there is no same record, and 4. Considering the fact that the amount of the accepted bribery can be deemed to be a relatively small amount, the defendant's age, occupation, health, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing factors shown in records and arguments, such as circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to five years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

【Determination of Punishment】

Bribery crime: Acceptance of bribe (type 1) less than 10 million won

【Special Convicted Persons】

Reduction element: Where the degree of participation and the actual amount of profit is extremely minor (this subparagraph applies to the defendant in favor of him/her).

【General Convicts】

Reduction element: If the degree of participation or the actual amount of profit is minor, there is no record of criminal punishment (see evidence No. 334 of the record).

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

From one month to six months of imprisonment,

(c) Determination of sentence: Six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence;

1) The amount of the defendant's acceptance of a bribe is relatively larger. It can be seen that the defendant's non-purchase of public official's act infringing upon by the crime of this case and the social trust decline in the fair performance of official duties led to a considerable level.

Nevertheless, the Defendant has consistently stated each of the above D and F’s statements and consistent therewith, and there was no objective evidence, such as the business log, card sales slips, and the disbursement decision letter of the company, and therefore, the Defendant committed the instant crime without any grounds. Accordingly, the Defendant did not entirely reflect the strong opposition to the instant crime.

Considering the above points, the responsibility of the defendant is heavy.

2) On the other hand, however, considering the fact that the Defendant was the first offender without a criminal record, the Defendant’s age, occupation and health, character and conduct such as health, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the instant crime, and all sentencing factors as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

3. Defendant C.

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

1) Class 1 crime (Bribery to the above B)

【Determination of Punishment】

The offering of a bribe (type 1) is less than 30 million won;

【Special Convicted Person】

[No person who is a general person]

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Above 10 up to 10 months of imprisonment,

2) Class 2 (Bribery to the above A)

【Determination of Punishment】

The offering of a bribe (type 1) is less than 30 million won;

【Special Convicted Person】

【General Convicts】

- Aggravationd elements: where business relations are high;

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

Above 10 up to 10 months of imprisonment,

3) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for four months to one year (the first crime maximum + the second crime maximum 1/2)

(c) Determination of sentence: Ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence;

1) On October 11, 2012, the Defendant, in relation to rape of his/her female employees, was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with prison labor for the crime of rape and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (an indecent act committed in relation to occupational force, etc.) at Seoul High Court (No. 2012No1437), and again committed each of the instant crimes within the said period of probation until October 18, 2017, even though the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 19, 2012.

On the condition that the defendant delivers the defendant to his employee, Co-Defendant A demanded an increase of 10%. Whether it is too excessive or not," and in light of the above, it can be deemed that there is a false purchase of official duties by the public official who infringed upon each of the crimes of this case by the defendant, and that social confidence in the process of performing official duties by the public official has reached a serious level.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had engaged in each of the instant crimes without any objective evidence, such as the business log, text messages, books, and expenditure resolution, prior to the consistent statement of the above D and F, and accordingly, the Defendant did not entirely reflect the degree of suppressing recidivism.

Considering the above points and the fact that the defendant's crime of this case was "competence", it can be said that the responsibility of the defendant is heavy.

2) However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had no criminal record for the same kind, and that each of the mines stated in the judgment which had been established for the first time may not be deemed a relatively large amount, the Defendant’s age, occupation and health, etc., character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and all of the sentencing factors shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Facts charged;

1. 피고인 A의 뇌물수수 피고인은 2017. 4. 18.경 ▣▣시에 있는 ▣▣시청 구내식당 앞 도로에서 위 ‘甲바이오코리아’ 대표인 공동피고인 C로부터 ‘수질개선용 미생물 제재에 대한 수의계약의 당사자로 선정되게 해 달라.’는 청탁과 함께 6,700원 상당의 화장품 1세트를 교부받아, 공무원의 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 수수하였다. 2. 피고인 B의 뇌물수수 피고인은 2017. 4. 18.경 ▣▣시에서 위 C로부터 ‘수질개선용 미생물 제재에 대한 수의계약의 당사자로 선정되게 영향력을 행사하여 달라.’는 부탁과 함께 6,700원 상당의 화장품 1세트를 교부받아, 공무원의 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 수수하였다. 3. 피고인 C의 뇌물공여 피고인은 ㉮ 이 부분 공소사실 제1항 기재 일시, 장소에서 위와 같은 명목으로 ▣▣시 담당 공무원인 위 A에게 6,700원 상당의 화장품 세트 1개를 교부해주고, ㉯ 위 공소사실 제2항 기재 일시, 장소에서 위와 같은 명목으로 ▣▣시 공무원인 위 B에게 6,700원 상당의 화장품 세트 1개를 교부줌으로써, 각 공무원의 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 공여하였다.

2. Determination

가. 압수한 피고인 C가 운영한 위 업체에서 업무상 반복적으로 작성되어 왔다고 볼 수 있는 ‘화장품 입출고내역 장부’를 통해 알 수 있는, 피고인 C의 위 업체에서 작성된 ‘화장품 지급 리스트’의 2017. 4. 18.자 부분에 ‘▣▣ A 박사 1개’, ‘▣▣ B 1개’라는 공소사실에 부합하는 내용이 적시되어 있긴 하다.

B. However, according to the records, the Defendants’ statements are deemed to be “one-way” in the absence of the delivery of one cosmetics set forth in this part of the facts charged. ② The above D began to work from July 10, 2017 to Defendant C’s holding company, and the above F started to work from July 1, 2017 to Defendant C’s holding company. It can be deemed that the above D and F made an employment contract with the content that the F began to work in the Defendant’s holding company from July 1, 2017. However, the above D and F made a statement to the effect that all of them are not well aware of the “former” (i.e., the date on April 18, 2017 as indicated in the facts charged). This can only be deemed to be appropriate for the Defendants, defense counsel, and the Defendants, who did not receive one cosmetic set of the cosmetics set forth in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this portion of the facts charged.

C. Thus, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are all when there is no proof of crime, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act that each of the defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment

Judges fixed-type

1) Defendant A, who was a public official in charge of each of the instant crimes, had Defendant C purchase the block for reducing malodor and purifying water quality from the Abaon North Korea Business Office, which Defendant C actually operated through a free contract, etc. on August 31, 2017, around the day of each of the instant crimes.

2) This price can only be said to be the amount that Defendant C purchased with the so-called “special supply price” applied to the cosmetics, the distribution period of which is imminent, and the general consumers can purchase approximately KRW 250,000 via the Internet, and the said C himself said that the set price per set is KRW 300,000.

3) 이 TV는 화면 대각선 길이가 1.5m를 넘어 약 165㎝에 달하는 대형 TV로서, 이와 관련하여 위 D은 ‘㉠ 자신이 피고인 B의 집 2층에 TV를 설치할 때 위 C, 피고인 B과 계속 함께 있었고, ㉡ TV가 혼자 들거나 설치할 수 있는 정도의 크기가 아니며, 위 C와 함께 운반하고 설치까지 같이 하였고, ㉢ TV와 사운드바를 일단 D 자신의 개인 돈으로 샀고 이후 회사 즉 위 C 운영업체의 돈으로 전보받았으며, ㉣ 피고인 측 주장과 달리, 당시 피고인 B이 TV 대금에 해당하는 현금 700,000원을 위 C에게 주는 것을 본 적이 없다고 일관하여 진술한다.

4) This can be said to serve as a spacker.

5) 피고인 B과 그 변호인 즉 피고인 B 측은, 위 C와 관련한 판시 업무가 ‘▲▲운영과’에서 담당하는 것 일 뿐이고 당시 피고인 B 자신은 ‘□□□운영과’에서 근무하였기에 직무관련성이 없다고 주장한다. 그 러나, 뇌물죄에서 말하는 ‘직무’에는 법령에 정하여진 직무뿐만 아니라 그와 ‘관련’ 있는 직무, 관례상 이나 사실상 소관하는 직무행위, 결정권자를 보좌하거나 ‘영향’을 줄 수 있는 직무행위, ‘과거’에 담당 하였거나 장래에 담당할 직무 외에 사무분장에 따라 현실적으로 담당하고 있지 않아도 법령상 일반적인 직무권한에 속하는 직무 등 공무원이 그 직위에 따라 담당할 일체의 직무를 포함하는바(대법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2017도12346 판결 참조), ㉠ 피고인 B이 2013년도까지 사이에 직접 담당자인 공 동피고인 A의 ‘상사’인 판시 ‘▲▲운영과장’으로 근무한 적이 있고 그때에도 위 C와 수의계약을 체결 한 바가 있는 점, ㉡ 직접 담당자인 위 A과 ‘함께’ 위 C가 제공해준 저녁 식사를 같이 해왔던 점을 고 려할 때, 피고인 B은 위 A에게 업무상 영향을 미칠 수 있고 과거 위 C 관련 업무를 직접 담당한 바 도 있어서 직무관련성을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로, 위 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.