Page 310 - Demo

%uad6d%ubbfc%uad8c%uc775%uc704 %ud559%uc220%uc9c0 %u300c%uad8c%uc775%u300d310 Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights CommissionAbstractSupreme Court Case Analysis and Legislative Issues Related to Article 8 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act%u2759 Kim, HyosonLawyer / Economist, Bank of KoreaThis article examines three Supreme Court cases, the Money Envelope Dinner Case, the Golden Key Case, and the Mayor%u2019s Executive Assistant Case, regarding the prohibition of accepting anything of value under Article 8 of Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (Anti-Graft Act). It will cover four issues: (1) the meaning of a %u201chigh-ranking public official%u201d, which is an exception to the prohibition on giving anything of value, (2) the determination of the purpose of the exception, (3) the calculation of the value of the offer of anything of value, and (4) the intent to benefit.Given that Article 8(3)(1) of the Anti-Graft Act is a passive component that reduces the harshness of criminal penalties, it is not necessary to align it with the Code of Conduct for Public Officials, especially the relevant provisions that presuppose instructions in the course of duty. Rather, considering practical cases, it is appropriate to interpret it in a relaxed manner, similar to the position of the Supreme Court precedents, and leave open the possibility of individual judgment. The purpose under Article 8(3)(1) and (2) of the Anti-Graft Act are both passive and subjective. In particular, budgetary prescribed purposes, which are active and objective purposes under the Code of Conduct for Public Officials, are not considered. However, since the level of punishment is lower than other types, it is necessary to correct it and regulate it simply.