Supreme Court: "Gratuities Equivalent to Benefits Provided by Public Officials Are Also Bribes"… Principal Fined 2 Million Won for Receiving 500,000 Won Gratuity Confirmed

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if a public official receives cash equivalent to the benefit provided to the other party, bribery charges can be established if there is a connection to official duties.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Noh Jeong-hee) announced on the 3rd that it upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing former elementary school principal A to a fine of 2 million won for bribery charges, and former electrical construction company director B to a fine of 2 million won with an additional 500,000 won confiscation for bribery offering charges.

The court stated the reason for dismissing the appeal was that "there was no error in the lower court's judgment by failing to conduct necessary hearings, violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misinterpreting the legal principles regarding the connection to official duties, quid pro quo, and intent to gain profit in bribery cases."

A, who was the principal of an elementary school in Ulleung-gun, Gyeongbuk Province, was indicted on charges of receiving an envelope containing 500,000 won in cash from B, a director of the company responsible for the school's electrical work, on February 18, 2019, as a quid pro quo for various conveniences related to the progress and completion of the construction. B was indicted for offering a bribe to A.

The company B belonged to had started repair work on the aging electrical facilities of the school's main building and kindergarten building on January 7, 2019, and was nearing completion on February 28, 2019.

In court, B claimed that the money given to A was not a bribe but a customary return gift for various presents and conveniences A had provided over time.

B argued that ▲ A personally invited the construction supervisors on their first day entering Ulleungdo and treated them to a lunch worth about 200,000 won (bokguri), ▲ during the construction period, A introduced a pension where they could stay at a discounted price, saving about 350,000 won, ▲ frequently visited the lodging to offer fruits and provided snacks and drinks at the construction site, and ▲ the school administrative office's duty officer invited construction company personnel for dinner, among other considerations.

In particular, B contended that unable to reciprocate these favors before leaving the island after completing the construction, he saw A preparing sea cucumbers he had harvested as a farewell gift and handed A the money he had withdrawn to give pocket money to his nephews who participated in the construction as part-time workers.

The claim was that the money was given out of gratitude for the gifts and conveniences received, not as a bribe with quid pro quo related to official duties.

However, the first trial court rejected this claim, found both A and B guilty of bribery, and sentenced each to a fine of 2 million won. The court also suspended the disqualification sentence for A, who received the bribe. Additionally, after the incident surfaced, B returned the money, but the court ordered the confiscation of the 500,000 won provided as a bribe.

The court dismissed the defendants' claims that the money given by B to A was merely a customary return or a social necessity without connection to official duties, stating it could not be recognized as lacking relevance to official duties.

The court explained, "A was the final decision-maker within the school regarding all matters related to supervising and inspecting the completion of the aging electrical facility repair contract, which was concluded on January 14, 2019, for 43.5 million won, and held a position that could directly influence the construction company." It added, "Although B testified that the administrative officer C was responsible for supervising the construction and that A was unrelated, considering that the school principal has authority to command and supervise affiliated staff, it is reasonable to conclude that B was aware that A, as principal, could exert at least indirect influence over C."

The court also noted, "Considering the type and amount of the money involved, 500,000 won in cash, it is difficult to regard it as merely a customary return."

Even accepting B's statement that the money was given out of gratitude for the gifts and conveniences received, the court concluded that it was difficult to deny the connection to official duties, considering ▲ that receiving money equivalent to benefits provided by a public official cannot be automatically accepted as socially permissible, ▲ B chose to provide money in a manner completely different from the benefits A provided, and ▲ the amount of money was excessively high even considering the benefits provided.

Finally, the court pointed out, "At the time of the incident, procedures such as completion inspection and payment approval for the construction had not been completed, so the construction company could reasonably expect official convenience from A. Therefore, the acceptance of the money could raise doubts about the fairness of official duties from the perspective of society." The money was handed over on February 18, 2019, with the completion date on February 28 and payment approval on March 8, meaning B still needed A's assistance for smooth payment of construction fees.

The court added, "This cannot be viewed differently even if A did not demand the money, no requests or conveniences related to the construction company occurred during the construction process, and A had a history of similar considerations for staff and others."

A and B each appealed on grounds of factual error, legal misinterpretation, and excessive sentencing, while the prosecution appealed on grounds of leniency. However, the appellate court dismissed all appeals.

The Supreme Court also found no issues with the lower courts' judgments.

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