Bribe or no bribe?

To verify the committing of certain crimes, determining if the act was done in return for something is important. Bribery is the most notable of such crimes. A Seoul court will soon make a ruling on lawmakers who received small donations from the National Security Guards Association. Key to the decision is to verify if the money the lawmakers received was in return for legislative lobbying or political donations. Prosecutors cleared charges against a prosecutor who bought a luxurious car after receiving money from a construction company, but returned the money later on. The prosecutor was cleared on the grounds that he was not paid in return for favors in a criminal investigation of prosecutors getting gifts last year. In a sex trafficking case, if the john does not pay after sex, the case does not constitute sex trafficking.

The crime of buying off a rival candidate under election laws is similar in structure to bribery. Whether valuables changed hands in return for something is important, and the giver and receiver are punished. Like bribe-taking before and after the bribery incident, the crime of buying off a rival candidate is classified as a crime of buying before and after the rival’s dropping out. Under election law, buying off a rival candidate before the latter’s resignation refers to “giving valuables or a seat with the view to getting the rival candidate to resign.” The crime of buying off a rival candidate after the latter’s resignation refers to giving valuables or a seat or making promises as such in return for withdrawal from an election.

The superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, Kwak No-hyun, told reporters last month, “In elections, behind-the-scenes trading in return for favors should be banned to assure fairness, but life after elections is the beginning of a different lifestyle,” claiming that once the election is over, behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing cannot exist. The statute of limitations under the Constitution says a crime committed after the election date defines it as six months from the date of the incident, suggesting that election crimes can be committed even after the election date. If valuables are granted after an election in return for a candidate dropping out, this constitutes “bribery after resignation,” Bribery after resignation does not require advance appointment, either.

Kwak denies that the 200 million won (188,000 dollars) he paid to Park Myoung-gee, a professor at Seoul National University of Education who was to run against him as superintendent, was in return for fielding a unified liberal candidate but was a gesture of good will. Kwak said he felt sympathy for Park’s impoverished financial status. Ahead of Park’s summons set for Monday, prosecutors have focused their investigation on proving the compensatory nature of the money. Nobody, be it prosecutors or judges, can look inside Kwak’s brain, and they have no choice but to determine whether he committed a crime by finding circumstantial evidence over whether money changed hands. No suspect will seamlessly confess to his crime in a bribery case, even if the purpose of the compensation was bribery related. According to past bribery cases at the Supreme Court, the compensatory nature is determined based on how and whether reciprocal parties had private relationships, what the value of the valuables was, and the timing and route of bribery channels.

Editorial Writer Song Pyeong-in (pisong@donga.com)