The Supreme Court confirmed the suspended prison sentence of a Korea Environment Corporation employee who was prosecuted for violating the Anti-Graft Act by raising a product’s grade in exchange for compensation. This ruling marks the first case in which the interpretation of 'legislation' under the Anti-Graft Act was adjudicated.
According to the legal community on the 22nd, the Supreme Court's first division confirmed on the 20th of last month, the sentence of six months in prison with a two-year suspension for Director A of Korea Environment Corporation, who was prosecuted for violating the Anti-Graft Act. The first trial acknowledged Director A's charges and sentenced a six-month imprisonment with two-year probation. Director A appealed the decision but the second trial dismissed the appeal.
Director A was brought to trial on charges of accepting a solicitation from the head of Company B, which collects and sorts packaging materials for recycling, in October 2018. The solicitation requested to elevate the grade of packaging materials sorted by their company, and the following month, during the examination of Company B’s packaging materials, Director A allegedly awarded high scores in each evaluation category.
The Supreme Court's judgment is that the crime of violating the Anti-Graft Act is established when public officials who receive improper solicitations perform their duties according to the solicitation, regardless of compensation. The court deemed that Director A's act of excessively giving evaluation scores to carry out the grade examination work according to the intent of the solicitation violated work processing standards and was unfair. This was aimed at promoting the private interests of the solicitor and is clearly against the purpose of the work.
The Anti-Graft Act regards as improper solicitation acts that influence various evaluation tasks conducted by public institutions by directing public officials to violate legislation, exceed their position or authority, or exercise authority on matters not within their jurisdiction. It also stipulates that public officials who receive such solicitations should not perform duties accordingly.
Until now, interpretations by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission have been accepted as guidelines when applying the Anti-Graft Act. The Supreme Court found that Director A did not violate legislation under the Anti-Graft Act but abused authority, leading to the confirmation of the sentence. Director A carried out duties following internal guidelines set by Korea Environment Corporation, but these guidelines do not fall under legislation under the Anti-Graft Act.