Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
When an LH technical review committee member is a public official
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Do6266 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)(인정된죄명:배임수재)·뇌물수수(인정된죄명:배임수재)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a professor at a national university, commissioned as a technical review committee member of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, received money from firms that had taken part in the Corporation's tenders, was the conduct related to his duties as an educational public official, did the provisions deeming persons to be public officials under the legislation on contracts to which the State is a party apply to him, and was he a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act?
Holding
No on all three points, and the appeal was dismissed. The money had no job-relatedness to the defendant's post as a public education servant, since his committee work was neither part of nor closely related to his duties as a professor. The deeming provisions did not reach him, because Article 39(3) of the Public Institutions Management Act delegated only accounting and bid-participation matters, and an order extending criminal punishment beyond an express delegation is void; a committee member grounded in internal processing standards may not be a public official under Article 129.
Points at issue, verbatim
피고인이 입찰에 참여한 업체로부터 금품을 수수하였더라도 이는 피고인의 교육공무원 지위와는 직무관련성이 인정되지 않고, 피고인에게 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법령상 공무원 의제규정이 적용되지 않으며, 내부 사무처리 기준 등에 직무상 근거를 둔 한국토지주택공사의 기술심사평가위원은 형법 제129조의 공무원에 해당할 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
even if the defendant accepted money or goods from a company participating in the tender, this is not recognized as job-related to the defendant's status as an educational public official, the statutory provisions deeming a person a public official under the laws and regulations concerning contracts to which the State is a party do not apply to the defendant, and a technical review and evaluation committee member of Korea Land & Housing Corporation whose position is grounded in official duties, such as internal standards for handling affairs, cannot be regarded as a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
원심판결 이유를 앞서 본 법리와 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 정당하고, 상고이유 주장과 같이 위임입법의 한계에 관한 법리를 오해한 잘못이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
An examination of the reasons for the judgment of the court below in light of the legal principle stated above and the records reveals that the above finding of the court below is just, and there is no error in misunderstanding the legal principle concerning the limits of delegated legislation, as asserted in the grounds for final appeal.
Factors
- 피고인의 교육공무원 지위와는 직무관련성이 인정되지 않고
- 피고인에게 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법령상 공무원 의제규정이 적용되지 않으며
- 내부 사무처리 기준 등에 직무상 근거를 둔 한국토지주택공사의 기술심사평가위원은 형법 제129조의 공무원에 해당할 수 없다고
Unofficial English translation
• this is not recognized as job-related to the defendant's status as an educational public official,
• the statutory provisions deeming a person a public official under the laws and regulations concerning contracts to which the State is a party do not apply to the defendant, and
• a technical review and evaluation committee member of Korea Land & Housing Corporation whose position is grounded in official duties, such as internal standards for handling affairs, cannot be regarded as a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 5. 31. 선고 2001도670 판결(공2002하, 1602), 대법원 2006. 5. 26. 선고 2005도1904 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Do670 decided May 31, 2002 (Gong 2002 Ha, 1602), Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1904 decided May 26, 2006
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 5. 31. 선고 2001도670 판결(공2002하, 1602), 대법원 2006. 5. 26. 선고 2005도1904 판결 / [2] 대법원 2017. 2. 16. 선고 2015도16014 전원합의체 판결(공2017상, 665) / [3] 대법원 2012. 7. 26. 선고 2012도5692 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the appointment of technical review committee members were fixed by a decree whose delegation expressly covered criminal punishment, would a member's commissioned work be treated as a public official's duty under the Article 129 definition?
A statutory basis for appointing Korea Land and Housing Corporation committee members, or an amendment to Article 39(3) of the Public Institutions Management Act expressly delegating matters of criminal punishment, would require this entry to be read again. So would a later Supreme Court decision treating an internal processing standard as giving a committee member external binding authority.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the appointment of technical review committee members were fixed by a decree whose delegation expressly covered criminal punishment, would a member's commissioned work be treated as a public official's duty under the Article 129 definition?” vs Independent “Under what circumstances could a national university professor's external evaluation work be sufficiently connected to educational or research duties to constitute official duties?”
The primary reading asks about status under an expressly authorized decree, whereas the independent reading asks when external evaluation work is sufficiently connected to educational or research duties.
피고인이 입찰에 참여한 업체로부터 금품을 수수하였더라도 이는 피고인의 교육공무원 지위와는 직무관련성이 인정되지 않고, 피고인에게 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법령상 공무원 의제규정이 적용되지 않으며, 내부 사무처리 기준 등에 직무상 근거를 둔 한국토지주택공사의 기술심사평가위원은 형법 제129조의 공무원에 해당할 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례Raw 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 High Court, in its judgment of 17 April 2025 (2024No2700), held that the defendant's duties as a professor were teaching, guiding students and research, and that the committee post was open to private university professors as well, so his committee work was not part of, or closely related to, his duties. It held that Article 39(3) of the Public Institutions Management Act delegated only accounting and bid-participation restriction matters to the Minister of Economy and Finance's decree, so the deeming provisions in Article 35(iii) of the State Contracts Act and Article 118(i) and Article 42(7) of its Enforcement Decree did not apply, and that the detailed review criteria were internal processing standards only.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It approved the reasoning on job-relatedness, on the limits of delegated legislation and on the meaning of public official under Article 129, holding that the appellate judgment had breached neither the rules of logic and experience nor the relevant law. It noted that the prosecution had appealed the whole judgment but stated no specific ground against the conviction part, and dismissed the appeal with the unanimous agreement of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case where the commissioned work is part of the official's statutory duties or is rationally necessary in relation to the duties he must perform, so that job-relatedness is made out.
- A case where the decree is expressly mandated to provide for criminal punishment, so that a deeming provision does not exceed the delegation.
- A case where a committee member's authority is grounded in a statute or a regulation with external binding force, rather than in an internal processing standard.
Record verification notes
Test whether the commissioned work satisfies both the formal side, an act done as part of public service, and the substantive side, rational necessity in relation to the duty. Then check whether the delegation to the decree covers criminal punishment as well as accounting and bid-participation restrictions, and whether the instrument grounding the committee member's authority binds outsiders. Note that the conviction part was not reviewed on its merits, since the prosecution stated no specific ground for it.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조의 ‘공무원의 직무에 속한 사항’의 의미 및 구체적인 행위가 공무원의 직무에 속하는지 결정할 때 고려할 사항 [2] 법률의 시행령이 형사처벌에 관한 사항을 규정하면서 법률의 명시적인 위임 범위를 벗어나 처벌 대상을 확장하는 경우, 위임입법의 한계를 벗어나 무효인지 여부(적극) [3] 형법 제129조에서 정한 ‘공무원’의 의미 [4] 국립대학교 교수인 피고인이 한국토지주택공사의 기술심사평가위원으로 위촉 후 위 공사의 입찰에 참여한 업체로부터 금품을 수수하여 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 입찰에 참여한 업체로부터 금품을 수수하였더라도 이는 피고인의 교육공무원 지위와는 직무관련성이 인정되지 않고, 피고인에게 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법령상 공무원 의제규정이 적용되지 않으며, 내부 사무처리 기준 등에 직무상 근거를 둔 한국토지주택공사의 기술심사평가위원은 형법 제129조의 공무원에 해당할 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "a matter falling within the duties of a public official" in Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, and the matters to be considered in determining whether a specific act falls within the duties of a public official [2] Where an Enforcement Decree of an Act prescribes matters concerning criminal punishment and expands the scope of punishable conduct beyond the explicit scope of delegation of the Act, whether it is void as exceeding the limits of delegated legislation (affirmative) [3] The meaning of "public official" as used in Article 129 of the Criminal Act [4] A case in which the court below found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that where the defendant, a professor at a national university, was appointed as a technical review and evaluation committee member of Korea Land & Housing Corporation and was prosecuted for accepting money or goods from a company participating in a tender of the said Corporation, even if the defendant accepted money or goods from a company participating in the tender, this is not recognized as job-related to the defendant's status as an educational public official, the statutory provisions deeming a person a public official under the laws and regulations concerning contracts to which the State is a party do not apply to the defendant, and a technical review and evaluation committee member of Korea Land & Housing Corporation whose position is grounded in official duties, such as internal standards for handling affairs, cannot be regarded as a public official under Article 129 of the Criminal Act
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 / [2] 헌법 제12조 제1항, 제75조, 형법 제1조 제1항 / [3] 형법 제129조 / [4] 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제2조 제1항, 제3조, 형법 제129조, 제357조 제1항, 공공기관의 운영에 관한 법률 제39조 제3항, 공기업·준정부기관 계약사무규칙 제2조 제5항, 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률 제35조 제3호, 국가를 당사자로 하는 계약에 관한 법률 시행령 제42조 제7항, 제118조 제1호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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