What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: 2017.03.19 Bribery Korean Law Interpretation Analysis
Select a size
Beware of robbers robbing someone with bribery and then commit further briberies to prosecute the victim on charge of bribery to keep their plunder (Jews)!
Comments appear also on the right hand column.
제 129 조 ( 수뢰 , 사전수뢰 ) ①공무원 또는 중재인이 그 직무에 관하여 뇌물을 수수 , 요구 또는 약속한 때에는 5 년 이하의 징역 또는 10 년 이하의 자격정지에 처한다 .
②공무원 또는 중재인이 될 자가 그 담당할 직무에 관하여 청탁을 받고 뇌물을 수수 , 요구 또는 약속한 후 공무원 또는 중재인이 된 때에는 3 년 이하의 징역 또는 7 년 이하의 자격정지에 처한다 .
제 130 조 ( 제삼자뇌물제공 ) 공무원 또는 중재인이 그 직무에 관하여 부정한 청탁을 받고 제 3 자에게 뇌물을 공여하게 하거나 공여를 요구 또는 약속한 때에는 5 년 이하의 징역 또는 10 년 이하의 자격정지에 처한다 .
제 131 조 ( 수뢰후부정처사 , 사후수뢰 ) ①공무원 또는 중재인이 전 2 조의 죄를 범하여 부정한 행위를 한 때에는 1 년 이상의 유기징역에 처한다 .
②공무원 또는 중재인이 그 직무상 부정한 행위를 한 후 뇌물을 수수 , 요구 또는 약속하거나 제삼자에게 이를 공여하게 하거나 공여를 요구 또는 약속한 때에도 전항의 형과 같다 .
③공무원 또는 중재인이었던 자가 그 재직 중에 청탁을 받고 직무상 부정한 행위를 한 후 뇌물을 수수 , 요구 또는 약속한 때에는 5 년 이하의 징역 또는 10 년 이하의 자격정지에 처한다 .
④전 3 항의 경우에는 10 년 이하의 자격정지를 병과할 수 있다 .
제 132 조 ( 알선수뢰 ) 공무원이 그 지위를 이용하여 다른 공무원의 직무에 속한 사항의 알선에 관하여 뇌물을 수수 , 요구 또는 약속한 때에는 3 년 이하의 징역 또는 7 년 이하의 자격정지에 처한다 .
제 133 조 ( 뇌물공여등 ) ①
http://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=188383&chrClsCd=010202&urlMode=lsInfoP&efYd=20161220제129조 내지 제132조에 기재한 뇌물을 약속, 공여 또는 공여의 의사를 표시한 자는 5년 이하의 징역 또는 2천만원 이하의 벌금에 처한다.
②전항의 행위에 공할 목적으로 제삼자에게 금품을 교부하거나 그 정을 알면서 교부를 받은 자도 전항의 형과 같다 .
제 134 조 ( 몰수 , 추징 ) 범인 또는 정을 아는 제삼자가 받은 뇌물 또는 뇌물에 공할 금품은 몰수한다 . 그를 몰수하기 불능한 때에는 그 가액을 추징한다 .
§ 129.1 prohibits any and all public employees/officials and lobbyists from receving, demanding or promising something (the words with respect to “promise” is unclear, it can mean to make a promise in an active sense or acquire a promise as a future benefit, or just plainly enter into a promise with respect to something). Under five years in prison maximum.
§ 130. When public employees/officials and lobbyists receive a “negative” request (immoral request), and then makes a third party to offer, or demand from him or make a promise, less than 5 years in prison or less than 10 years of suspension.
§ 131.1. When public employees/officials and lobbyists do anything that is in violation of § 129-130, at least a one year prison sentence is mandatory. Difference from the sentencing guideline in § 129.1 could be found in that § 131.1 describes the act of the public employees/officials or lobbyists as something “negative” in relation to their function in office. The wording isn’t clear, but it states that when they do something in violation of § 129 or § 130, the clause seems to presume that they have committed a crime, one year mandatory prison term.
First, from a superficial overview, it seems that for a public employee or a lobbyist to take part in any of these things, it is assumed as de facto crime. But the qualifying phrase “negative” need to be analyzed further. They are namely mentioned in § 130 and § 131, but each in different sense. The terminology “negative” is used in § 130 as part of a necessary condition for the clause to be satisfied, and it demands that there be an immoral (“negative”) request; whereas § 131, the term negative is used casually as something that would be assumed de facto of a public employee/official or lobbyist who has commited a crime of violating either § 130 or § 131.
Exercising the power of office (of the president) to give someone an immunity or release someone earlier than expected from his sentence may not in itself constitute something negative; while to receive, demand or make a promise in some way (whether binding in terms of civil law, etc, unclear) relating to it by itself constitutes a violation of § 129 and hence, a crime, that is, for the public employee/official or lobbyist.
§ 130 is the only clauses that directly mentions a third party who is not a public employee/official or a lobbyist, or who will not be, and who had not been. And it relates to this third party in a way that the public employee/official, etc. in question makes this third party give something, or demand something from him or enter into a promise. So the clause provides the condition for the punishment of the public employee/official or lobbyst, etc. and not the third party. The third party, in this sense, could be the company in question which made the donation, or it may not. The lobbyist, on the other hand, may be the person who mediated in between, as has been made known through the media.
§ 133 is the only clause that states in a comprehensive manner that anyone who provided, promised or made an offer to provide (whether to be understood in terms of civil law or not, as for instance, Rechtsgeschäft, Willenserklärung, Offerte, in a binding way will not be dealt with presently) the object that comprise those listed in § 129-§ 132, could be put under three years in prison at maximum or under seven years of suspension.
The lobbyist and public official/employee would qualify as having committed a crime for coming under the provisions of § 129-§ 132, when they receive something at all relating to their job, for instance.
The third party, however, such as Mr. Choi/Chey, would qualify under the § 133 only if he knew that what he promised, if the fact of promising were to be evaluated as having been final and effective, only if he knew and what he in fact promised, according to the explicit words, that the thing of promise is something that is to be given for the benefit of the promisee, and not for the improvement or revival of the economy in general, at the time of promising.
The time of promising, if anything of the sort were to be viewed as binding and qualifying as the one above described, is, of course, different from performance of the promise, whether the latter is by nature entailed by the former or merely accidentally. The evaluation of the performance, therefore, cannot, under certain circumstances, be evaluated with the same framework as that used to view the promise. The promise could have been general, as mentioned in the above paragraph, while the party performing as a result may have had different intentions or knew of different factual circumstances than the original promisor had in mind at the time of the promise.
Beware of robbers robbing someone with bribery and then commit further briberies to prosecute the victim on charge of bribery to keep their plunder (Jews)!in § 129.1 could be found in that § 131.1 describes the act of the public employees/officials or lobbyists as something “negative” in relation to their function in office. The wording isn’t clear, but it states that when they do something in violation of § 129 or § 130, the clause seems to presume that they have committed a crime, one year mandatory prison term.
§ 130 is the only clauses that directly mentions a third party who is