Supreme Court: Gifts Sent in the Name of Public Officials Are Also Bribery

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that a public official can be punished for bribery even if no money or goods are directly exchanged during the process of sending gifts in their own name.

On the 12th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Park Sang-ok) overturned the lower court's acquittal verdict in the appeal trial of Gyeonggi Provincial Government official Mr. A and others, who were indicted on charges including bribery, and remanded the case to the Incheon District Court with a guilty verdict.

Mr. A, who was the head of the Fisheries Department at the Gyeonggi Provincial Government, received a message in November 2013 from Mr. B, the head of the Gimpo Fishing Village Association, saying, "If there is anyone to gift, I will send salted shrimp." Mr. A sent a list to Mr. B. Mr. B then sent salted shrimp priced at 7,700 won each to 329 people listed on the list under Mr. A's name.

Mr. B claimed that he sent the salted shrimp under the name of public official Mr. A simply because it would be advantageous for promoting the salted shrimp, and that it was not a bribe.

However, the first trial recognized all their charges. The court stated that since Mr. A was aware of the shipment of salted shrimp and was closely involved in duties related to the Gimpo Fishing Village Association, such as monitoring fishing activities, it should be considered that he received a bribe from Mr. B. Mr. A was fined 10 million won, and Mr. B was sentenced to one year in prison with two years probation, also being found guilty of embezzlement and other charges.

The second trial overturned the bribery charges, stating that no benefit gained by Mr. A from the shipment of salted shrimp was proven. The court pointed out, "For bribery to be established, a relationship must be proven where the 329 recipients of the salted shrimp can be evaluated as if Mr. A directly received them, but there is no evidence to support this."

The Supreme Court reversed the decision again. Citing precedent that bribery can be established even if money or goods do not directly pass between the giver and receiver, the court ruled that the bribery charges should be recognized in this case as well. The court held that Mr. B merely handled the delivery, and it should be considered that Mr. A received the salted shrimp.

The court stated, "The recipients of the salted shrimp recognized the sender as Mr. A, not Mr. B," and ruled, "It should be seen that Mr. A intended to acquire the salted shrimp provided by Mr. B and make it his own."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.