Ordering a Subordinate to Conceal Evidence Deemed 'Own Act'... Bribed Official Acquitted of Instigation Charge

"Sufficient Grounds Exist to View the Acts as Concealment of One’s Own Evidence"
Bribery Charges Upheld... Sentenced to Two Years in Prison and a 30 Million Won Fine

The Supreme Court has finalized the judgment that, when a public official orders a subordinate to move a car containing money in the midst of a bribery investigation, this act falls under the category of the official’s own evidence concealment and cannot be separately punished as the crime of instigation of evidence destruction.

Seoul Seocho-gu Supreme Court. Yonhap News Agency

According to the legal community on September 30, the First Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) recently upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing Mr. A, indicted on charges of bribery and instigation of destruction of evidence, to two years in prison, a fine of 30 million won, and the forfeiture of approximately 12.65 million won.

Mr. A worked as head of the accounting department at Iksan City Hall in North Jeolla Province, overseeing discretionary contract work. He was indicted for receiving, on nine occasions, meals worth 660,000 won and, on six occasions, golf expenses amounting to 990,000 won from the chairman and a director of an association while accepting requests related to discretionary contracts. He was also charged with accepting, on eight occasions, gift certificates worth 8 million won from an executive director of one company, as well as 3 million won in cash from the CEO of another company.

The police, after discovering signs of Mr. A’s bribery, conducted a search and seizure at Iksan City Hall. At the time, to avoid 91.4 million won in cash and 8.53 million won worth of gift certificates stored in his car from being discovered, Mr. A instructed a subordinate to contact his family and have the car removed.

Mr. A was also charged with receiving 2 million won in cash from Company Representative B. After being contacted by a reporter who said advertisement performance was needed, Mr. A asked B to run an advertisement. B did not run any advertisements, but instead offered Mr. A 2 million won in cash, requesting assistance with a discretionary contract. Mr. A claimed that he intended to return the money to B.

The key issues were whether instructing someone else to conceal evidence in one’s own criminal case could be viewed as an abuse of the right to defense, and whether Mr. A had the intention to unlawfully acquire the 2 million won from B.

In the first trial, Mr. A was sentenced to one year in prison, a fine of 20 million won, and the forfeiture of approximately 12.65 million won. He was found guilty of instigating evidence concealment. However, he was found not guilty regarding the 2 million won received from B.

The appellate court reached a different conclusion. It overturned the ruling on the 2 million won issue, finding Mr. A guilty, stating it was reasonable to believe he intended to unlawfully acquire the bribe. However, regarding the instigation of evidence concealment, the court found him not guilty, reasoning that it was difficult to say the action caused or risked serious disruption to the criminal justice process. The court added that there was sufficient ground to view his conduct as falling within the scope of his own evidence concealment. Consequently, the sentence was increased to two years in prison and a fine of 30 million won.

The Supreme Court also found no fault with the appellate ruling and dismissed the final appeal.

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