Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Valuing entertainment shared by several attendees at one sitting
Supreme Court, Oct. 8, 2024, 2023Do12580 (judgment)
Case name: 부정청탁및금품등수수의금지에관한법률위반[「부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률」(이하 ‘청탁금지법’) 제8조 제1항의 공직자등에 대한 향응 가액 산정 방법이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a public official receives entertainment and consumes it together with the provider, who paid for it, how is the value of the entertainment received by the defendant to be calculated, and where several public officials were present, must special circumstances showing that their shares differ be taken into account?
Holding
The cost must first be split into what went on the defendant's reception and what the provider itself consumed; the former figure is the value received, and where that split is unclear the cost is divided equally unless there are special circumstances. The same applies where several officials received the entertainment. Only where the prosecution proves special circumstances showing that another attendee's share cannot be valued as the same as the defendant's must that share be deducted from the total and the balance divided equally among the remaining attendees.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피고인이 받은 향응 가액을 산정할 때는 먼저 피고인의 접대에 들어간 비용과 향응제공자가 소비한 비용을 가려낸 다음 전자의 수액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 하고, 만일 각자에 들어간 비용이 불분명할 때에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 평등하게 분할한 액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 인정해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In calculating the value of the entertainment received by the defendant, the cost incurred for the defendant's entertainment and the cost consumed by the provider of the entertainment must first be distinguished, whereupon the amount of the former shall be taken as the value of the entertainment received by the defendant, and, if the cost incurred for each is unclear, then unless there are special circumstances, the amount obtained by dividing it equally must be recognized as the value of the entertainment received by the defendant.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
즉, 향응제공자와 공직자 등인 피고인 및 다른 참석자의 관계, 각자의 신분, 향응 제공이 이루어진 목적과 연유, 참석의 경위와 참석한 시간, 제공된 향응의 내역과 특성 등에 비추어
Unofficial English translation
That is, in light of the relationship between the provider of the entertainment and the defendant, who is a public official, etc., and the other attendees, the respective status of each, the purpose and reason for which the entertainment was provided, the circumstances under which the attendance occurred and the time of attendance, the details and characteristics of the entertainment provided, etc.
Factors
- 향응제공자와 공직자 등인 피고인 및 다른 참석자의 관계
- 각자의 신분
- 향응 제공이 이루어진 목적과 연유
- 참석의 경위와 참석한 시간
- 제공된 향응의 내역과 특성
Unofficial English translation
• the relationship between the provider of the entertainment and the defendant, who is a public official, etc., and the other attendees
• the respective status of each
• the purpose and reason for which the entertainment was provided
• the circumstances under which the attendance occurred and the time of attendance
• the details and characteristics of the entertainment provided
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
The prosecution Stated in the decision
공소사실에 대한 증명책임을 부담하는 검사가 다른 참석자에게 제공된 향응 가액이 피고인의 그것과 동일하다고 평가할 수 없는 특별한 사정에 대하여 증명하지 않는 경우에는 원칙으로 돌아가 총비용을 평등하게 분할한 금액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the prosecutor, who bears the burden of proof as to the facts charged, fails to prove the special circumstances under which the value of the entertainment provided to the other attendees cannot be evaluated as identical to that of the defendant, one must revert to the principle, and the amount obtained by dividing the total cost equally shall be taken as the value of the entertainment received by the defendant.
Open question and revisit condition
Where special circumstances are proved as to a late or short-staying attendee but the bill does not allow that attendee's consumption to be identified separately, on what basis is that attendee's share to be quantified before it is deducted from the total?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Southern District Court, once it values Defendant 3's entertainment on the method set out here, will show how the shares of attendees who were not present throughout are quantified in practice. A later Supreme Court decision changing the method, or an amendment to Article 8 of the Anti-Graft Act or to the monetary thresholds in the Presidential Decree, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary frames the special-circumstance test as a comprehensive weighing of relationship, status, purpose, attendance and content, while the independent reading sets out a stepwise requirement; the form of the standard differs though both reach the same allocation rule.
만일 각자에 들어간 비용이 불분명할 때에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 평등하게 분할한 액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 인정해야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Southern District Court, in its judgment of 24 August 2023 (2022No1556), left the first-instance acquittal standing. It held that the entertainment supplied by Defendants 1 and 2 to Defendant 3 at a nightlife establishment between about 21:30 on 18 July 2019 and 01:00 the next day might not have exceeded KRW 1 million on one occasion, and that the prosecution's evidence alone did not prove the value beyond reasonable doubt. In valuing it, it treated the prosecution's method as sound apart from the number of attendees, deducted KRW 550,000 of costs arising after two of the non-party prosecutors had left, divided the remaining KRW 4.81 million equally among six attendees, and divided that KRW 550,000 equally among the four who remained.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below misread the law on valuing entertainment and failed to try what it had to. Attendees came and went at clearly different times, and their relationships, the purpose and course of the provision and the nature of what was served meant that the shares of the two non-party prosecutors and of a further public official who joined mid-evening could not be valued the same as Defendant 3's, so simply splitting the total in two periods by time of departure was not open to it. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the court below.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case with only one attendee besides the provider, in which no other attendee's share has to be separated and deducted.
- A case in which the prosecution does not prove special circumstances showing that another attendee's share cannot be valued the same, since the equal division then stands as the principle.
- A case in which each attendee's individual consumption can be identified from the establishment's billing, so that the costs are attributed directly rather than divided.
Record verification notes
Set out every attendee with the time of arrival and departure, and against that the itemised bill, separating the basic charge that was complete before anyone joined late and the charges that arose only after others left. Then ask what evidence the file holds on each attendee's relationship to the provider and to the official, the purpose of the provision and the contents served, since without proof of special circumstances the equal division governs. Keep in mind that the value is part of the offence: above KRW 1 million on one occasion or KRW 3 million per fiscal year.
From the official text
Points at issue
금품 등 수수 및 제공으로 인한 부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률 위반죄에서 피고인인 공직자 등이 향응을 제공받아 향응제공자와 함께 소비하고 향응제공자가 이에 소요되는 금원을 지출한 경우, 피고인이 받은 향응 가액을 산정하는 방법 / 이는 동시에 향응을 제공받은 공직자 등이 다수일 때에도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) / 이때 다수의 공직자 등이 각자 제공받은 향응 가액에 차이가 있다고 평가할 만한 특별한 사정이 있는 때에는 이를 반영해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
In a case of the crime of violation of the Act on the Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and the Receipt and Provision of Money, Valuables, etc., where a defendant who is a public official, etc. received entertainment, consumed it together with the provider of the entertainment, and the provider of the entertainment expended the money required therefor, the method of calculating the value of the entertainment received by the defendant / Whether the same applies even where a plurality of public officials, etc. received entertainment at the same time (affirmative) / Whether, in such a case, where there are special circumstances warranting an assessment that the value of the entertainment received by each of the plurality of public officials, etc. differs, this must be reflected (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
금품 등 수수 및 제공으로 인한 부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률(이하 ‘청탁금지법’이라 한다) 위반죄에서 피고인인 공직자 등이 향응을 제공받아 향응제공자와 함께 소비하고 향응제공자가 이에 소요되는 금원을 지출한 경우, 피고인이 받은 향응 가액을 산정할 때는 먼저 피고인의 접대에 들어간 비용과 향응제공자가 소비한 비용을 가려낸 다음 전자의 수액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 하고, 만일 각자에 들어간 비용이 불분명할 때에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이를 평등하게 분할한 액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 인정해야 한다. 이는 동시에 향응을 제공받은 공직자 등이 다수일 때에도 마찬가지이다. 그런데 다수의 공직자 등이 각자 제공받은 향응 가액에 차이가 있다고 평가할 만한 특별한 사정이 있는 때에는 청탁금지법의 입법 취지에 따라 향응 가액의 평가 및 귀속이 적정하게 이루어질 수 있도록 그러한 사정을 반영할 필요가 있다. 즉, 향응제공자와 공직자 등인 피고인 및 다른 참석자의 관계, 각자의 신분, 향응 제공이 이루어진 목적과 연유, 참석의 경위와 참석한 시간, 제공된 향응의 내역과 특성 등에 비추어, 다른 참석자가 제공받은 향응 가액이 피고인의 그것과 동일하다고 평가할 수 없는 특별한 사정이 증명된 경우에는, 다른 참석자가 제공받은 향응 가액을 구분하여 총비용에서 이를 공제하고 남은 가액을 향응제공자를 포함한 나머지 참석자들 사이에서 평등하게 분할한 액으로 피고인에 대한 향응 가액을 정하여야 한다. 다만 금품 등 수수 및 제공으로 인한 청탁금지법 위반죄는 해당 금품 등 가액이 1회에 100만 원 또는 매 회계연도 300만 원을 초과하는 것이 범죄구성요건의 일부로 되어 있어, 그 가액에 따라 형사처벌 여부가 달라지므로, 향응을 포함하여 제공받은 금품 등의 가액을 책임주의 원칙에 맞도록 합리적인 기준으로 신중하게 산정해야 하고, 공소사실에 대한 증명책임을 부담하는 검사가 다른 참석자에게 제공된 향응 가액이 피고인의 그것과 동일하다고 평가할 수 없는 특별한 사정에 대하여 증명하지 않는 경우에는 원칙으로 돌아가 총비용을 평등하게 분할한 금액을 피고인이 받은 향응 가액으로 해야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
부정청탁 및 금품등 수수의 금지에 관한 법률 제8조 제1항, 제2항, 제5항, 제22조 제1항 제1호, 제3호, 제23조 제5항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger