Constitutional Court: "Under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, Amounts Given by Non-Identical Persons Must Be Calculated as '1/n'"

High School Baseball Coach Found Not Guilty by Supreme Court for Accepting Money... Parent Association President Who Gave Money Also Deemed Not Guilty

Constitutional Court Grand Bench.

[Asia Economy Reporter Seokjin Choi, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Constitutional Court has ruled that when calculating the amount of money provided in a gathering that cannot be recognized as the same person under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the total amount should be judged based on the amount divided by the number of members.

On the 31st, the Constitutional Court announced that it unanimously accepted the constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A, who served as the president of a high school baseball team parents' association, requesting the cancellation of the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition regarding his alleged violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

The Constitutional Court decided, "The respondent (prosecutor)'s non-prosecution disposition on May 29, 2020, by the Changwon District Prosecutors' Office Masan Branch in the 2019 Brother OO case against the petitioner infringed upon the petitioner's right to equality and pursuit of happiness, and thus it is canceled."

Mr. A, who served as the president of a high school baseball team parents' association from June 2016 to August 2017, was investigated by the prosecution for allegedly providing a total of 25.4 million KRW to baseball team coach Mr. B in 15 instances, each exceeding 1 million KRW, from October 2016 to August 2017 (violation of Article 8, Paragraph 5 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act).

The prosecution indicted Mr. B for violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act for receiving the money, but issued a non-prosecution disposition for Mr. A. Although the charge of providing money exceeding 1 million KRW per instance and 3 million KRW per year, which is prohibited under the Act, was acknowledged, Mr. A was a first-time offender and appeared to have no improper solicitation purpose.

However, since a non-prosecution disposition acknowledges the criminal charge but does not prosecute, Mr. A, who claimed innocence, filed a constitutional complaint requesting the cancellation of the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition.

Mr. A argued that the entity providing money to Coach B was not himself as an individual but the parents' association, and when the amount given to Coach B is divided by the number of parents' association members (40 in 2016, 47 in 2017), the amount he provided per instance was only between 27,000 KRW and 119,000 KRW, and the total amount was only 591,444 KRW, which does not violate the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. For the same reason, he emphasized that the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition infringed upon his right to equality and pursuit of happiness and should be canceled.

Meanwhile, the first trial court acquitted Coach B, who was prosecuted, on the grounds that intent was not recognized. The appellate court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, reasoning that the parents' association does not fall under the same person as defined in Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, and that when the money received by Coach B is divided by the number of players, the amount received from one player's parent does not exceed 1 million KRW per instance or 3 million KRW per fiscal year. The Supreme Court confirmed this appellate court ruling.

The Constitutional Court also agreed with the court's ruling regarding the concept of the same person under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

The Constitutional Court cited the court's ruling, stating, "The same person under Article 8, Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act means the same natural person and legal entity in a literal interpretation, but the parents' association is not a legal entity, and considering its bylaws and purpose, it is difficult to view it as an independent organization with autonomy such as a non-legal corporation or foundation."

Mr. A, as the president of the parents' association, merely mechanically executed the membership fees paid by parents under the name of research funds or performance bonuses, and when the amount provided to Coach B is divided by the number of parent members, it does not constitute a violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

The Constitutional Court stated, "Despite the difficulty in recognizing the facts of the case based solely on the legal theory regarding the same person under Article 8, Paragraph 1 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act and the evidence in the investigation records, the respondent recognized that the petitioner committed a violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act and issued the non-prosecution disposition in this case," adding, "Therefore, there is a serious investigative negligence or a legal misinterpretation of the provisions of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act that influenced the decision of the non-prosecution disposition in this case, and as a result, the petitioner's right to equality and pursuit of happiness were infringed," explaining the reason for accepting the complaint.

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