공수처, 지귀연 '409만원 술자리' 청탁금지법 기소…뇌물죄는 제외(종합) | 연합뉴스
Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, Lee Gwi-yeon indicted for violating the Act on Prohibition of Solicitation and Receipt of Money under '4.09 million won drinking party' ... bribery charges excluded (comprehensive) | Yonhap News
Kantor Kejaksaan Agung dan mantan anggota parlemen Ji Gui-yeon didakwa atas pelanggaran Undang-Undang Larangan Penyuapan terkait "pesta minum" senilai 4,09 juta won. Mereka tidak didakwa dengan tuduhan suap.
서울북부지법 부장판사 지귀연이 변호사 두 명으로부터 409만원 상당의 술 접대를 받은 혐의로 청탁금지법 위반 혐의로 불구속기소되었다. 공수처는 지 부장판사가 15만5천원을 제외한 나머지 금액이 3명으로 나눠도 100만원을 초과한다는 점, 변호사들이 함께 지 부장판사를 접대한다는 의사를 공유하고 비용만 나눠서 낸 것으로 판단하여 청탁금지법 위반 혐의로 기소했다. 하지만 뇌물죄는 직무와의 대가성이 입증되지 않아 적용되지 않았다. 지 부장판사는 접대 당시 술을 거의 먹지 않았다고 주장했으나, 공수처는 택시 호출 기록 등을 통해 지 부장판사가 4~5시간 동안 주점에 머물렀음을 확인했다. 공수처는 향응 제공자들이 변호사인 점을 고려해 재판 편의 청탁 등 대가성 여부를 수사했으나, 접대 당시 지 부장판사가 속한 재판부에 이들이 수임한 사건이 없었던 점 등을 토대로 뇌물죄는 적용하기 어렵다고 판단했다. 지 부장판사 측은 공수처의 법률적용에 대한 당혹감을 표명하며, 동일인으로부터 제공받은 금액이 100만원을 초과하지 않는다는 입장이다.
Seoul Northern District Court Chief Judge Ji Gui-yeon was indicted without detention on charges of violating the Anti-Graft Act for allegedly receiving a reception worth 4.09 million won from two lawyers. The Public Prosecutors' Office judged that the remaining amount, excluding 155,000 won, exceeded 1 million won even when divided among three people, and that the lawyers shared the intention to treat Judge Ji together and paid only the cost, so they were indicted on charges of violating the Anti-Graft Act. However, bribery was not applied because the quid pro quo with official duties was not proven. Judge Ji argued that he hardly drank alcohol at the time of the reception, but the Public Prosecutors' Office confirmed through taxi call records and other evidence that he stayed at the bar for 4 to 5 hours. The Public Prosecutors' Office investigated whether there was a quid pro quo such as judicial convenience in consideration of the fact that the providers of hospitality were lawyers, but concluded that bribery was difficult to apply because there were no cases entrusted to these lawyers in the trial department where Judge Ji belonged at the time of the reception. Judge Ji's side expressed bewilderment about the Public Prosecutors' Office's legal application and argued that the amount received from the same person did not exceed 1 million won.
Hakim Ketua Pengadilan Distrik Seoul Utara Ji Gui-yeon didakwa menerima suapan senilai 4.090.000 won dari dua pengacara. Kantor Kejaksaan menuntutnya karena melanggar Undang-Undang Larangan Gratifikasi. Kantor Kejaksaan memutuskan bahwa jumlah uang yang diterima hakim, kecuali 155.000 won, melebihi 1 juta won jika dibagi tiga. Karena para pengacara berniat bersama untuk memperlakukan hakim dan hanya membagi biaya, maka dianggap melanggar Undang-Undang Larangan Gratifikasi. Namun, tuduhan suap tidak diaplikasikan karena tidak ada bukti hubungan antara pekerjaan dengan pemberian uang. Hakim Ji Gui-yeon mengklaim bahwa ia hampir tidak minum alkohol saat dijamu, tetapi Kantor Kejaksaan mengkonfirmasi bahwa ia berada di bar selama 4-5 jam berdasarkan catatan pemanggilan taksi. Meskipun para pemberi suapan adalah pengacara, Kantor Kejaksaan menyelidiki kemungkinan adanya imbalan seperti kemudahan dalam persidangan. Namun, karena tidak ada kasus yang ditangani oleh hakim Ji Gui-yeon saat itu yang melibatkan pengacara tersebut, maka tuduhan suap dianggap sulit diterapkan. Pihak Hakim Ji Gui-yeon menyatakan kebingungan atas penerapan hukum oleh Kantor Kejaksaan dan berpendapat bahwa jumlah uang yang diterima dari satu orang tidak melebihi 1 juta won.
