All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2019Do5186 Decided February 13, 2020 【Abuse of Authority and Obstruction of Exercise of Rights; Violation of State Public Officials Act; Violation of the Public Official Election Act; Coercion; Perjury; Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery); Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss of National Treasury)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Meaning of “abuse of authority” as stated in the crime of abusing official authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights, and standard of determining whether or not a certain act constitutes abuse Requirements for a certain duty to be deemed to fall within the purview of a public official’s general official authority [2] That a public official’s act constitutes abuse of official authority means an aggrieved party’s performance of act constitutes a “non-obligatory act” (negative), and the standard of determining whether or not a certain act constitutes a “non-obligatory act” In a case where a party subject to abuse of official authority is a private person, whether compelling the said party to perform a certain act can constitute “the time of causing another person to perform a non-obligatory act” (affirmative in principle) [3] Whether the crime of abusing official authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights constitute an offense premised on the public official’s possession of official authority (affirmative) In a case where a public official conspired to commit a crime before retirement and is now retired from office, whether the said public official is liable as an accomplice to a crime committed after the said official’s retirement (negative in principle) [4] Meaning and content of “intimidation” as referred to in the crime of coercion In a case where a perpetrator demanded that a victim provide certain benefits based on his or her position or status, standard of determining whether the said demand constitutes a threat of harm and injury employed as a means of the crime of coercion In a case where a perpetrator, who is a public official, demanded that a victim provide certain benefits, but where the said demand cannot be deemed to fall within the abovementioned definition of “a threat of harm and injury,” whether the crime of coercion is established (negative) [5] In a case where the Defendants, who were the chief of staff and the public officials working for the office of senior secretary for political affairs, were charged with abuse of official authority and obstruction of another’s exercise of rights and coercion for imposing demands on the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI) to provide annual funding support to civil society actors linked to a specific political orientation over the course of three years from 2014 to 2016 and in so doing cause Party A, the vice president of the FKI, to provide funding support to certain civil society organizations, the case affirming the lower judgment that recognized the establishment of the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights on the grounds that the Defendants’ demands for funding support fell under the general duties and authority of the chief of staff and the office of the senior secretary for political affairs and therefore constituted abuse of official authority, and that the abovementioned abuse of official authority caused Party A to make a decision to provide funding support, a non-obligatory act, but holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding intimidation in the crime of coercion on the ground that the Defendants’ demands for funding support cannot be readily considered to be intimidation, i.e., a threat of harm and injury |
|
