CONTENTS
- 1. The Client Who Came to the Daejeon Law Office
- 2. The Daejeon Law Office Conducted a Consultation on the Crime of Offering a Bribe
- - The Daejeon Law Office Established That the Client Had Lent Money After Being Deceived by the Public Official
- - The Daejeon Law Office Confirmed Numerous Sentencing Factors for the Client
- 3. The Daejeon Law Office: “The Defendant Offered the Bribe After Being Deceived by the Co-Defendant and Is Deeply Reflecting”
- 4. Sentencing for the Crime of Offering a Bribe, as Explained by the Daejeon Law Office
- 5. The Court Accepted the Daejeon Law Office's Argument and, Considering All Sentencing Factors, Granted a “Suspended Sentence”
1. The Client Who Came to the Daejeon Law Office
The Daejeon client who came to the Daejeon law office had been charged with the crime of offering a bribe and requested a consultation at the law office.
The points confirmed in the consultation with the Daejeon law office were that the client was the representative director of a manufacturing company and that the client paid hundreds of millions of won because of a public official who deceived the client.
The client stated that the client committed this offense after receiving a project selection proposal from the public official.
2. The Daejeon Law Office Conducted a Consultation on the Crime of Offering a Bribe
At the Daejeon law office, the client acknowledged the charge but expressed that there were many aspects that felt unfair.
To clarify the exact circumstances of the case, an in-depth consultation was conducted.
The Daejeon Law Office Established That the Client Had Lent Money After Being Deceived by the Public Official
At the Daejeon law office, the client explained that the client paid the money after being promised selection for the project.
The public official, however, continued to demand money, citing financial difficulties, and the client, running short of funds, even took out a bank loan.
The Daejeon Law Office Confirmed Numerous Sentencing Factors for the Client
The Daejeon law office conducted a consultation with the client and was able to confirm numerous sentencing factors.
The Daejeon law office focused on the fact that the client paid the money after being deceived by the public official's lies and decided to use this as effective evidence at trial.
3. The Daejeon Law Office: “The Defendant Offered the Bribe After Being Deceived by the Co-Defendant and Is Deeply Reflecting”
Through a thorough consultation with the client, the Daejeon law office of Daeryun Law Firm assembled an attorney team made up of several professionals with extensive experience in cases involving the offering of bribes.
The Daeryun attorney team emphasized that the defendant acknowledged the charge of offering a bribe and was sincerely reflecting.
The team then emphasized that the defendant had paid hundreds of millions of won, even taking out a loan, after being deceived by the co-defendant's lies, and requested the most lenient disposition possible.
■ The defendant acknowledged the facts charged in this case and was sincerely reflecting.
■ The defendant committed the offense in this case after being promised by the co-defendant that the defendant's company would be selected for a government project.
■ It was confirmed that the co-defendant demanded money and valuables despite having no intention of selecting the defendant's company as the project operator.
■ The co-defendant continued to demand money from the defendant, citing financial difficulties, and the defendant ultimately took out a loan and handed it over to the co-defendant.
■ The defendant deeply regretted having sought project selection through improper means and was resolved never to commit the same crime again.
4. Sentencing for the Crime of Offering a Bribe, as Explained by the Daejeon Law Office
The Daejeon law office of Daeryun Law Firm emphasized that the crime of offering a bribe is an unlawful act that applies to ordinary people as well as public officials, so caution is required.
Criminal Act Article 129 (Acceptance of Bribe and Advance Acceptance) (1) Where a public official or arbitrator receives, demands, or promises a bribe in connection with the official's duties, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or suspension of qualifications for not more than 10 years. (2) Where a person who is to become a public official or arbitrator receives, demands, or promises a bribe after accepting a solicitation in connection with the duties to be assumed, and then becomes a public official or arbitrator, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 3 years or suspension of qualifications for not more than 7 years.
Article 130 (Bribe to a Third Party) Where a public official or arbitrator, after accepting an improper solicitation in connection with the official's duties, causes a bribe to be given to a third party or demands or promises such giving, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or suspension of qualifications for not more than 10 years.
Article 131 (Wrongful Act After Acceptance of Bribe and Subsequent Acceptance) (1) Where a public official or arbitrator commits a crime under the preceding two Articles and performs a wrongful act, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for a definite term of at least 1 year. (2) The same punishment as in the preceding paragraph shall apply where a public official or arbitrator, after performing a wrongful act in the course of duty, receives, demands, or promises a bribe, causes it to be given to a third party, or demands or promises such giving. (3) Where a person who was a public official or arbitrator, after accepting a solicitation during the term of service and performing a wrongful act in the course of duty, receives, demands, or promises a bribe, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or suspension of qualifications for not more than 10 years. (4) In the cases under the preceding three paragraphs, suspension of qualifications for not more than 10 years may be imposed concurrently.
Article 132 (Acceptance of Bribe Through Good Offices) Where a public official, by using the official's position, receives, demands, or promises a bribe in connection with arranging matters belonging to the duties of another public official, the person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 3 years or suspension of qualifications for not more than 7 years.
Article 133 (Offering of Bribe, and Others) (1) A person who promises, gives, or expresses an intention to give a bribe referred to in Articles 129 through 132 shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than 20 million won. (2) A person who delivers money or valuables to a third party for the purpose of providing them for the act under paragraph (1), or a third party who receives such money or valuables while aware of the circumstances, shall also be punished as under paragraph (1).
Article 134 (Confiscation and Collection of Equivalent Value) A bribe received by the offender or by a third party aware of the circumstances, or money or valuables intended to be provided as a bribe, shall be confiscated. Where such confiscation is not possible, the equivalent value shall be collected.
Article 135 (Aggravation of Punishment for a Public Official's Crimes in the Course of Duty) Where a public official, by abusing official authority, commits a crime other than those in this Chapter, the punishment prescribed for that crime shall be increased by up to one half. This does not apply, however, where a specific punishment is prescribed by reason of the status of a public official. |
5. The Court Accepted the Daejeon Law Office's Argument and, Considering All Sentencing Factors, Granted a “Suspended Sentence”
Accepting the argument of the Daejeon law office of Daeryun Law Firm, the court ruled, “The defendant is sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment. However, the execution of the above sentence is suspended for 2 years from the date this judgment becomes final.”
As the party who offered the bribe, the client was sent to trial together with the recipient of the bribe, who was the co-defendant in this case.
The client, charged with offering a bribe, could have received imprisonment of up to 5 years. This is a case in which the client was able to avoid detention in court after it was established that the client paid the bribe after being deceived by the recipient.
The client, who was running a manufacturing company, received the assistance of the Daeryun Daejeon law office and was able to obtain a suspended sentence and retain the position of representative.
The client promised Daeryun never to use improper means again.
The Corporate Legal Affairs Group of Daeryun Law Firm maintains specialized centers by field and handles multi-field cases relating to companies, including civil, criminal, and administrative matters.
In particular, it forms teams of numerous legal professionals, including corporate legal affairs attorneys, accountants, and evidence examination specialists, to handle cases.
For the convenience of corporate clients, in-person consultations are also available, so if you need assistance, you may contact Daeryun at any time.
![[대전변호사사무실 조력사례] 대전변호사사무실, 뇌물공여로 재판 넘겨진 의뢰인 집행유예 방어](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd1tgonli21s4df.cloudfront.net%2Fupload%2Fseo%2Fsuccess%2F20240621015733300.webp&w=828&q=100 "뇌물공여 집행유예 판결문")
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
