Seoul Central District Court Decision 2025GoDan6389, August 26, 2026 [Violation of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act]

【Holding】

In a case where Defendants A and B, a mathematics instructor and the head of textbook development at a private academy, agreed to be supplied with mathematics test items by Defendants C and D, who are incumbent teachers, and were indicted on the charges that Defendants A and B remitted money and valuables on a total of 20 occasions in return for receiving the mathematics test items produced by Defendants C and D, and that Defendants C and D received such remittances, thereby violating the prohibition on the giving and receiving of money and valuables, etc. under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act, the Court held that the money and valuables exchanged between the Defendants constituted a counter-performance, that is, consideration corresponding to the production of the test items, and amounted to the performance of obligations arising from a private transaction; therefore, Article 8(3)3 of the same Act applies, and they do not fall under money and valuables the giving and receiving of which is prohibited under Article 8(1) of the same Act

【Summary of Decision】

This is a case where Defendants A and B, a mathematics instructor and the head of textbook development at a private academy, agreed to be supplied with mathematics test items by Defendants C and D, who are incumbent teachers, and conspired such that Defendant B would recommend that Defendants C and D write test items and would request and receive the items whenever their production was needed, while Defendant A would provide the money and valuables; accordingly, Defendants A and B remitted money and valuables on a total of 20 occasions in return for receiving the mathematics test items produced by Defendants C and D, and Defendants C and D received such remittances, and the Defendants were indicted on the charges of violating the prohibition on the giving and receiving of money and valuables, etc. under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (hereinafter "Improper Solicitation and Graft Act").

The Court held as follows: the amounts received by Defendant C averaged KRW 241,653 per item for mock examination items and KRW 124,604 per item for general textbook items, and the amounts received by Defendant D averaged KRW 238,839 per item for mock examination items and KRW 137,029 per item for general textbook items; in addition to incumbent teachers such as Defendants C and D, Defendants A and B were also supplied with test items by professional companies and solicited test items from the general public, and the amounts paid per item to them ranged from KRW 150,000 to KRW 391,304 for professional companies and from KRW 100,000 to KRW 500,000 for public solicitation, which were similar to or even higher than the amounts paid to the teachers; Defendants A and B examined and reviewed the content of the items received from the teachers and paid consideration only when the items were actually adopted for the textbooks; although Defendants C and D had not obtained permission for concurrent employment from the heads of their respective institutions, that alone cannot exclude the application of Article 8(3)3 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act; and Defendants C and D did not use the items supplied to Defendant A in examinations at the schools where they were employed, and even if they had engaged in such conduct, apart from whether they would be punished under the provisions punishing such conduct, it cannot be deemed that the crime of violating Article 8(1) of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act is established. Considering these circumstances comprehensively, the money and valuables exchanged between the Defendants constituted a counter-performance, that is, consideration corresponding to the production of the test items, and amounted to the performance of obligations arising from a private transaction; therefore, Article 8(3)3 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act applies, and they do not fall under money and valuables the giving and receiving of which is prohibited under Article 8(1) of the same Act.

【Referenced Statutes】

Articles 8(1), 8(3)3, 8(5), and 22(1)1 and 3 of the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act

(Source: Seoul Central District Court Decision 2025GoDan6389, August 26, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)

2026. 10. 19. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin