Crime of Acceptance of Money Through Good Offices in Bribery

Whether there was a relationship of consideration between the mediation of a matter falling within the duties of a public official and the money or goods received is determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances such as the following.

▷ The content of the good offices

▷ The personal relationship between the mediator and the provider of the benefit

▷ The scale of the money or goods and the circumstances and timing of the exchange

When these factors are considered comprehensively and as a whole, it is sufficient if a relationship of consideration between the act of good offices and the money or goods is recognized.

Meanwhile, where the money or goods received by the mediator have an inseparable combination of the character of consideration for the act of good offices and the character of consideration for another act, the entire amount of money or goods is regarded as consideration for the act of good offices.

Both acceptance of a bribe through good offices and acceptance of money through good offices refer to the act of receiving money or goods through an act of good offices related to the duties of a public official; however, they differ in their subject and punishment provisions.

▶ Article 132 of the Criminal Act

The Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes likewise provides as follows regarding the mediation of a matter falling within the duties of a public official.

▶ Article 3 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes

A person who accepts, demands, or promises money, goods, or other benefits in connection with the mediation of a matter falling within the duties of an officer or employee of a financial company, or who has a third party provide such, or who demands that such be provided, is subject to the following punishment.

▶ Article 7 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes

※ Acceptance of Money Through Good Offices by an Officer or Employee of a Financial Institution

For the crime of acceptance of money through good offices in bribery to be established, the key issues are whether an act of good offices actually took place regarding a matter falling within the duties of a public official, and whether there was consideration in relation to the receipt of money or goods.

Accordingly, the circumstances under which the money or goods were provided, the content of the conversation at the time, the suspect's role and influence, and the relationship with the public official, among others, must be comprehensively ascertained and proven.

In particular, it must be clearly established, through materials and logic, that there was no intent to request good offices or to exercise influence, and that the money or goods received were unrelated to the duties of the public official.

Even where a simple receipt of money or valuables occurred, there is Supreme Court precedent holding that the crime of acceptance of a bribe through brokerage is not established in the absence of an intention to broker.

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5655, rendered November 12, 2004

Accordingly, it is necessary to emphasize that the person did not perceive the concept of brokerage itself or had no such intention.

In particular, the argument should be structured to show that the other party unilaterally provided the money or valuables, or that, while the receipt of money or valuables is acknowledged, it took place without any connection to brokerage.

Even where the fact of receiving money, valuables, or benefits is acknowledged, voluntarily returning them or making efforts to recover the damage before the investigation commences may operate favorably in sentencing.

It is important to sufficiently establish the timing of the return, the voluntariness of the return, and the intention of the other party, and to objectively demonstrate genuine remorse.

The crime of acceptance of a bribe through brokerage is an area that calls for a careful examination of the detailed circumstances and legal elements of the case, such as how the money or valuables changed hands, whether there was an intention to broker, and the connection to the official duties of a public official, so it requires professional legal response.

In practice, a simple monetary transaction may be unfairly suspected of being a bribe, while conversely an act with a clear quid pro quo may be misunderstood as a favor between acquaintances.

Accordingly, an accurate organization of the facts and the development of a response strategy in the early stage of the investigation are of utmost importance.

Daeryun Law Firm has many attorneys registered with the Korean Bar Association as attorneys specializing in criminal law, and provides the following strategic assistance for economic crime cases, including the crime of acceptance of a bribe through brokerage.

→ Advising on the preparation of statements for investigative agencies

→ Accompanying the suspect during questioning and responding to detention warrants

→ Developing criminal trial strategy after the institution of prosecution

→ Preparing sentencing materials and organizing efforts toward recovery of damage

In addition, working in cooperation with our in-house Evidence Investigation Center, we lawfully collect and analyze evidence and develop defense strategies.

If an investigation is already underway or you have been identified as a suspect, please request a consultation with a criminal defense attorney at Daeryun Law Firm.