All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do14303 Decided August 29, 2019【Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery); Abuse of Authority and Obstructing Another From Exercising Right; Coercion (Partly Acknowledged Name of Crime: Attempted Coercion); Attempted Coercion; Occupational Disclosure of Other’s Secrets】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Admissibility of hearsay evidence Standard for determining whether a statement based on another person’s statement constitutes hearsay evidence or original evidence In a case involving a document recording a statement, where the authenticity of its contents is used as direct evidence of a crime, whether the said document is considered to be hearsay evidence (affirmative), and in a case where: (a) the admissibility of the document recording a statement is recognized on the grounds that it would be used as circumstantial evidence of the fact that a statement to a certain effect was made; and (b) the relevant fact is again used as indirect evidence proving the contents of a statement or its authenticity, whether the relevant document constitutes hearsay evidence (affirmative) [2] Intent of Article 364-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and whether the foregoing provision is applied only to cases where the relevant fact charged, which is subject to quashing for the same reason as that of joint criminal defendants, is adjudicated in the consolidated proceedings in the same stage of the proceedings (affirmative) [3] In the case where the Defendant, a former president of the Republic of Korea, was indicted on charges of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery), abuse of authority and obstructing another from exercising rights, and coercion, consisting of the acceptance of a bribe in relation to duties during her years in office and coercion by abusing her authority, the case holding as follows: (a) the lower court pronounced a single sentence by applying Article 38 of the Criminal Act, instead of pronouncing separate penalties for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Separate Economic Crimes (Bribery) and the remainder of the charges pursuant to Article 18(1)3 and 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act; and (b) in so determining, the lower court misapprehended the legal doctrine under Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act |
|
