Clear Legal Distinction Between Corporate Sponsorship and Bribery | Acquittal Case Analysis

1. Basic Concepts and Similarities of Corporate Sponsorship and Bribery

1.1 Basic Concept Definition

Corporate sponsorship goods and bribery share a common denominator in that they are both monetary benefits arising from transaction structures based on performance and counter-performance. Sponsorship goods refer to money or goods provided by sponsors to sponsored parties with expectations of specific counter-performance, while bribery refers to improper benefits provided as compensation related to public officials’ duties.

The key in determining whether corporate sponsorship goods constitute bribery lies in whether the protected legal interests of bribery crimes – fairness of public officials’ duty performance, social trust, and incorruptibility of public office – are violated. Particularly when state agencies or local governments enter into sponsorship agreements with corporations and receive sponsorship goods, whether such acts constitute bribery under criminal law becomes an important legal issue.

1.2 Structural Commonalities and Differences

The structural commonalities between corporate sponsorship goods and bribery appear in the following aspects. First, the exchange relationship of performance and counter-performance. In sponsorship, sponsors provide goods to sponsored parties, and sponsored parties provide corresponding counter-performance (advertising effects, name usage rights, etc.). In bribery crimes, bribe providers offer benefits to public officials, and public officials perform specific official acts as compensation, creating an exchange structure.

Second, the existence of quid pro quo relationships. Sponsorship is performed based on sponsorship agreements, and bribery is fundamentally based on quid pro quo relationships between official acts and improper benefits. Such quid pro quo relationships serve as essential elements in both cases.

Third, transfer of economic value. Both corporate sponsorship goods and bribery involve structures where benefits with certain economic value are transferred from one party to another.

1.3 Complexity of Practical Judgment

There are several reasons why distinguishing between corporate sponsorship goods and bribery is difficult in practice. First, due to external similarities, it is difficult to distinguish between them based solely on the provision of goods and counter-performance. Second, it is often difficult to determine what the parties’ actual intentions are. Even if the form of a sponsorship agreement is adopted, it may substantially be a sham act for bribery reception.

Third, judging the balance of counter-performance is difficult. When the counter-performance provided by the sponsored party is significantly insufficient compared to the performance provided by the sponsor, determining whether this can be viewed as a legitimate sponsorship relationship is complex.

1.4 Harmonization of Practical Necessity and Legal Regulation

In modern society, cultural, artistic, sports, and social welfare activities are virtually impossible to realize without corporate sponsorship. Not only private events but also events by state agencies or local governments often depend on corporate financial support, and particularly for local governments, private financial support or corporate attraction is essential to overcome limited financial conditions and solve regional pending projects or job creation issues.

The tension between such social demands and criminal law bribery provisions forms the background of legal disputes regarding the bribery nature of corporate sponsorship goods.

2. Legal Nature and Meaning of Sponsorship

2.1 Concept and Characteristics of Sponsorship

Accurately conceptualizing sponsorship is a very difficult task. The term sponsorship is sometimes used interchangeably with terms such as donation, support, assistance, promotion, and fundraising. In Korea, since the receipt of donated goods is principally restricted by the Donations Act, neutral terms such as advertising agreements are sometimes used rather than the term sponsorship, which is similar to donation.

The English designation for sponsorship is ‘Sponsoring’, which emerged in the 1970s in business administration to describe new types of marketing. Initially, it originated from companies supporting individuals or projects in sports or arts fields while expecting publicity or advertising effects as counter-performance.

2.2 Key Differences Between Donation and Sponsorship

The most important difference between donation and sponsorship is the presence or absence of counter-performance. Donation essentially involves unilateral provision of goods without presupposing counter-performance, while sponsorship essentially involves performance and counter-performance between sponsors and sponsored parties. This difference has important significance in legal regulation.

Since the Donations Act only regulates goods acquired without counter-performance, sponsorship goods that presuppose counter-performance are not subject to the Donations Act. Therefore, sponsorship goods have a different legal status in that they can be received without being subject to restrictions under the Donations Act.

2.3 Legal Status of Sponsorship Contracts

Sponsorship contracts have the nature of bilateral contracts under civil law. Sponsors bear the obligation to provide goods, and sponsored parties bear the obligation to provide counter-performance (e.g., providing advertising effects, allowing name usage, etc.). Due to this bilateral contractual nature, sponsorship contracts receive different legal treatment from donations.

When sponsorship contracts are validly established under civil law, parties bear legal obligations to perform their respective contractual duties and have the right to claim contract performance from the other party. This becomes an important consideration when determining the bribery nature of corporate sponsorship goods.

2.4 Various Types of Sponsorship Goods

From a criminal law perspective, sponsorship is not necessarily limited to fields such as sports, culture, religion, or academia, but should be understood to include all types of sponsorship goods receipt involving performance and counter-performance concluded between state and local governments and private parties. This is because criminal law bribery crimes are determined based on whether such sponsorship goods violate the protected legal interests of bribery crimes, regardless of the type of sponsorship goods or the target of sponsorship.

In reality, the examples included in sponsorship are very diverse and have a very broad spectrum. For example, a typical sponsorship case is when a company representative sponsors a local museum and, in return, installs a nameplate with the company representative’s name in the museum. Such cases may constitute permitted receipt of goods or punishable bribery crimes depending on detailed contents or conditions.

3. Regulation of Sponsorship Goods Under the Donations Act

3.1 Scope of Regulation Under the Donations Act

The current Donations Act aims to create a mature donation culture, establish a sound donation collection system, and ensure appropriate use of collected donations by stipulating necessary matters regarding collection procedures and usage methods of donations.

The Donations Act historically dates back to the Donation Collection Prohibition Act enacted in 1951, which principally prohibited donation collection and allowed it only exceptionally. Later, the law title was amended to the Donation Collection Regulation Act in 1996, and has been implemented as the current Donations Act since 2006.

The current Donations Act aims to create a mature donation culture and establish a sound donation collection system, allowing donation collection unless specifically prohibited or permitted by other laws.

3.2 Importance of Consideration Criteria

Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Donations Act defines donations as “money or goods acquired without counter-performance, regardless of name such as welcome gifts, congratulatory gifts, support gifts, etc.” The key here is the requirement of ‘without counter-performance’.

Therefore, sponsorship goods that essentially involve counter-performance based on sponsorship agreements do not fall under donations as defined in the Donations Act. In other words, it is clear that sponsorship goods presupposing counter-performance are not subject to the Donations Act from the beginning.

However, the Donations Act excludes from donations: membership fees, lump sums, dues, or funds collected by corporations, political parties, social organizations, clan associations, friendship organizations, etc. from their members according to articles of association, regulations, or rules for the common benefit of their members; and funds collected by temples, churches, Confucian schools, and other religious organizations from believers to cover expenses necessary for their inherent activities.

3.3 Special Restrictions for Public Institutions

The Donations Act requires those who wish to collect donations of 10 million won or more to register with the Minister of Public Administration and Security or the head of a metropolitan local government. In this regard, the Donations Act principally prohibits donation collection by the state, local governments, their affiliated institutions and public officials, and corporations and organizations established with investment or funding from the state or local governments.

These institutions are also prohibited from receiving voluntarily donated goods except where other provisions exist in laws and regulations. Violations of Article 4, Paragraph 1 and Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the Donations Act are subject to criminal punishment.

3.4 Scope of Permitted Sponsorship Goods

Since the Donations Act only regulates goods acquired without counter-performance, our legal order does not prohibit sponsorship agreements with counter-performance or receipt of sponsorship funds. In conclusion, it is not prohibited under the Donations Act for the state or local governments to conclude sponsorship agreements with corporations and receive sponsorship goods based on such agreements.

However, it cannot always be concluded that the state or local governments concluding sponsorship agreements with corporations and receiving sponsorship goods does not violate current law. Cases where public officials receiving sponsorship goods secretly receive part of such sponsorship goods as bribes through hidden agreements with sponsors can be easily conceived.

4. Elements of Bribery and Determination of Quid Pro Quo Relationship

4.1 Development of Protected Legal Interests in Bribery

Regarding the protected legal interests of bribery crimes, academic theories compete between the view that it lies in the incorruptibility of official acts and the view that it lies in the incorruptibility of official acts and general trust therein. Korean precedents have shown changing aspects in this regard.

Previous precedents viewed the protected legal interests of bribery crimes as lying in the incorruptibility of official acts (Supreme Court Decision 64Do723, May 31, 1965). However, later precedents amended the existing position by ruling that “bribery crimes have the incorruptibility of official acts as their direct protected legal interest based on fairness of duty execution and social trust therein.”

This change has important significance in the scope of application and interpretation of bribery crimes. If only the incorruptibility of official acts is the protected legal interest, there is a limitation to recognizing the establishment of bribery crimes only when bribes are connected to duties through linear connections, so it is appropriate to understand it in a broad sense as in the amended precedent attitude.

4.2 Elements of Simple Bribery

Simple bribery (Article 129, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act) is established when a public official or arbitrator receives, demands, or promises bribes in relation to their duties. The key elements here are as follows.

First, the subject must be a public official or arbitrator. Since Article 129 of the Criminal Act does not separately define the concept of public officials, it is generally interpreted according to the concept of public officials under the general provisions of the Criminal Act.

Second, there must be job-relatedness. The requirement “in relation to their duties” means there must be relevance between bribes and the public official’s duties. This is closely related to the quid pro quo relationship, which is a core element of bribery crimes.

Third, bribes must be received, demanded, or promised. Here, bribes mean improper benefits for public officials’ duties, and do not necessarily need to have monetary value, including non-pecuniary benefits and all tangible and intangible benefits.

4.3 Elements of Third-Party Bribery

Third-party bribery (Article 130 of the Criminal Act) is established when a public official or arbitrator receives improper solicitation regarding their duties and causes or demands or promises the provision of bribes to a third party. Among the elements of this crime, ‘improper solicitation’ is particularly noteworthy.

The Supreme Court has interpreted ‘improper solicitation’ very broadly by ruling that “‘improper solicitation’ includes not only cases where solicitation involves illegal or improper duty execution, but also cases where the duty execution itself that is the subject of solicitation is not illegal or improper but involves connecting duty execution with some quid pro quo relationship and includes the delivery of compensation for duty execution.”

This interpretation means that even if duty execution itself is not illegal, merely connecting duty execution with quid pro quo relationships can constitute improper solicitation, which has important significance in cases related to corporate sponsorship goods.

4.4 Criteria for Establishing Quid Pro Quo Relationship

Whether simple bribery or third-party bribery, the core element is ‘bribery’, which is improper benefit as compensation for public officials’ duties. Since bribes must be improper benefits related to duties, there must be a quid pro quo relationship of performance and counter-performance between public officials’ official acts and improper benefits.

In recognizing quid pro quo relationships, temporal sequence is not necessarily required. That is, quid pro quo relationships can be recognized both when bribes are received first and duties performed later, or when duties are performed first and bribes received later.

Also, quid pro quo relationships need not be explicit and can be recognized through implicit agreements. Even if parties did not explicitly agree on quid pro quo relationships, bribery crimes can be established if quid pro quo relationships are recognized by comprehensively considering all circumstances.

4.5 Concept of Comprehensive Quid Pro Quo Relationship

Precedents recognize comprehensive quid pro quo relationships, viewing that bribery crimes are established when public officials’ duties and received benefits are in overall quid pro quo relationships without needing to specify individual official acts.

This has had the effect of broadening the scope of application of bribery crimes and has important significance in cases related to corporate sponsorship goods. Even if there is no one-to-one correspondence between specific official acts and sponsorship goods, bribery crimes can be established if quid pro quo relationships are recognized overall between public officials’ duties and sponsorship goods.

However, public officials’ receipt of benefits does not always lead to bribery crimes. Particularly, even if quid pro quo relationships are recognized between benefits and official acts, quid pro quo relationships can be negated if certain criteria are met. This means that quid pro quo relationships in bribery crimes can be negated if certain reasons that do not violate the protected legal interests of bribery crimes are present.

5. Concept and Scope of Benefits in Bribery

5.1 Concept of Benefits as Bribery

Bribes refer to improper benefits for duties. The benefits constituting the content of bribes do not necessarily need to have monetary value as long as they have sufficient value to influence official acts, and include non-pecuniary benefits and all tangible and intangible benefits.

Precedents define bribes in bribery or bribe-giving crimes as “money, goods, and other pecuniary benefits, etc., all tangible and intangible benefits sufficient to satisfy human needs and desires.” Therefore, they rule that so-called premiums attached to cooperative apartment membership rights also constitute bribes.

5.2 Distinction Between Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Benefits

According to precedent principles, financial privileges such as low-interest loans, romantic relationships, cheap real estate sales, large congratulatory or condolence money, golf course or health club memberships, opportunities to participate in speculative businesses, etc., also constitute benefits in bribery crimes.

Particularly regarding opportunities to participate in speculative businesses, the Supreme Court ruled that “when public officials receive opportunities to participate in speculative businesses as bribes, the completion time of bribery crimes should be viewed as when the act of participating in speculative businesses is completed, and even if no gains are obtained from such business participation contrary to initial expectations due to changes in economic conditions after completion of such acts, it does not affect the establishment of bribery crimes.”

This means that benefits in bribery crimes can be recognized merely by providing opportunities themselves, regardless of whether actual economic gains are realized.

5.3 Determination of Bribery Nature When Used for Public Interest

Since bribes are sufficient if they are illegal compensation or improper benefits, even when public officials arrange for pecuniary benefits in quid pro quo relationships with official acts to be donated to orphanages or social public institutions out of charitable motives, they can still constitute bribes. The Supreme Court rules that “even if public officials who received money and goods consumed them for subordinate employees and gained no personal benefit, the bribery nature is not denied.”

As a specific example, when a Fair Trade Commission chairman requested donations to a specific temple from a group’s restructuring headquarters director who asked for leniency regarding corporate merger reviews of an affiliated telecommunications company, such donation money constitutes improper benefit as bribes.

5.4 Relationship Between Abuse of Authority and Bribery Nature

What is important in the above case is that the Fair Trade Commission chairman’s abuse of authority is clear. Bribery nature was recognized because there was abuse of authority by the Fair Trade Commission chairman against private parties who had no obligation to provide donation money.

However, when relevant benefits are used for public interest purposes without abuse of authority by public officials, they should not be easily determined as bribes. Also, non-pecuniary benefits that satisfy honor desires or vanity are generally viewed as difficult to consider as benefits in bribery crimes because they are difficult to measure objectively.

This distinction becomes an important criterion when determining the bribery nature of corporate sponsorship goods. It is necessary to distinguish and judge between cases where public officials receive sponsorship goods for public interest purposes within the scope of legitimate authority and cases where they abuse authority to pursue private interests.

6. Validity and Effects of Sponsorship Contracts Under Civil Law

6.1 Criteria for Determining Validity of Sponsorship Contracts

Sponsorship contracts and receipt of sponsorship goods and performance of counter-performance based thereon are closely related to public officials’ legal rights to sponsorship goods. When sponsorship contracts and their performance that are externally in performance and counter-performance relationships are based on valid contracts under civil law, whether such performance or counter-performance can be viewed as bribes is an important issue.

The validity of contracts under civil law is determined based on agreement of intent, parties’ capacity to act, legality of contract content, etc. These general criteria for determining contract validity also apply to sponsorship contracts.

Particularly for sponsorship contracts concluded by public officials or public offices, important judgment factors include whether procedural requirements under relevant laws were observed, whether those with authority to conclude contracts did so, and whether contract content does not violate laws.

6.2 Contractual Rights and Claims

When money and goods provided by individuals or corporations to public officials are in quid pro quo relationships with obligations that public officials must perform, and such money and obligations are agreed upon in contracts, such money should not be considered as benefits corresponding to the elements of bribery crimes.

Therefore, if public officials hold legitimate rights or claims, such money should not be viewed as benefits constituting the content of bribes. Ultimately, whether money and goods received by public officials through bilateral contracts can be viewed as bribes depends on whether contracts concluded between private parties and public officials are legitimate.

This becomes important grounds for negating the bribery nature of corporate sponsorship goods. When public officials or public offices have legitimate legal rights to sponsorship goods based on valid sponsorship contracts under civil law, these cannot be viewed as improper benefits.

6.3 Distinction Between Sham Acts and Real Intention

When the true intention between sponsorship contract parties is not in bilateral contractual relationships but is merely a sham act to cover other improper acts, public officials lack legally approved grounds for rights, so it should be viewed as corresponding to benefits presupposed by bribery crimes.

In this regard, it is important to interpret and investigate contracts to determine the actual content and performance of sponsorship contracts. The mere fact that sponsorship contract documents were prepared is not sufficient; it is necessary to identify what the substantial content of contracts and the true intention of parties are.

Standards for determining whether acts are sham include comprehensively considering contract conclusion circumstances, balance of performance and counter-performance, contract performance status, and parties’ recognition.

6.4 Practical Standards for Contract Interpretation

In interpreting sponsorship contracts, the following practical standards are important. First, the language of contracts should be primarily considered. The content of performance and counter-performance specified in contracts, performance methods, performance timing, etc., should be specifically reviewed.

Second, the actual process of contract conclusion and performance should be examined. It should be confirmed whether the actual performance content matches the contract content and whether counter-performance was actually provided.

Third, parties’ subjective recognition should be considered. It should be determined whether parties truly recognized themselves as being in bilateral contractual relationships or merely prepared contract documents as a means to conceal bribery receipt.

7. Assessment of Balance Between Performance and Counter-Performance

7.1 Review of Necessity for Balance Requirements

Even when public officials and corporations conclude sponsorship contracts, there are divided views on whether performance and counter-performance must be in appropriate relationships to negate benefits in bribery crimes.

Some theories argue that performance provided by private parties and counter-performance by public officials must be in appropriate relationships to not constitute benefits in bribery crimes. In this case, they view that balance should be determined by comprehensively considering economic circumstances, public officials’ positions, experience, scope and duration of performance, market prices, etc.

Conversely, other views argue that since the basis of performance and counter-performance lies in bilateral contracts, quantitative appropriate relationships are not valid. They particularly point out that balance determination is difficult for advertising related to sponsorship contracts, and if it appears appropriate in advance but is later revealed to be inappropriate, it could lead to the possibility of establishing bribery crimes.

7.2 Application of Economic Efficiency Principles

If the content of relevant sponsorship contracts is within the valid scope under civil law, balance or adequacy between performance and counter-performance should not be important. Unless it is a case where invalidity can be claimed due to severe imbalance in civil litigation, precise balance review is not appropriate.

Since public officials or public offices should pursue maximum utility with minimum input, requiring strict balance between performance and counter-performance may rather impede the efficiency of public affairs. For example, even if performance and counter-performance do not achieve complete balance, if it contributes to public interest and helps efficient resource allocation, it should be viewed as legitimate.

7.3 Practical Difficulties in Balance Assessment

Assessing the balance of performance and counter-performance in sponsorship contracts is actually a very difficult task. First, it is difficult to accurately calculate the economic value of intangible counter-performance such as advertising effects or promotional effects.

Second, when similar transactions are not active in the market, it is difficult to find comparison standards. Particularly, sponsorship contracts between public institutions and private corporations have different characteristics from general commercial transactions, making it difficult to determine balance based simply on market prices.

Third, there is the issue of balance determination timing. When contracts appeared appropriate at the time of conclusion but became inappropriate later due to changes in economic conditions, problems arise regarding how to evaluate this.

7.4 Practical Application Methods

In practice, it is desirable to assess balance by comprehensively considering the following standards. First, review whether there is serious imbalance to the extent that contract validity would be negated due to significant imbalance under civil law.

Second, consider objective circumstances at the time of sponsorship contract conclusion and parties’ recognition. Determine whether it is a transaction that reasonable parties would accept at the time of contract conclusion.

Third, consider public interest and transparency. When sponsorship contracts contribute to public interest and are transparently disclosed, balance can be recognized even if there is some imbalance.

Fourth, consider parties’ negotiating power and information access ability. If it is the result of free negotiation by public officials or public offices based on sufficient information, such results should be respected.

8. Practical Standards for Distinguishing Sponsorship Goods from Bribery

8.1 Establishment of Core Judgment Criteria

When contracts between sponsors (corporations) and sponsored parties (public officials, public offices) are valid under civil law, sponsored public officials have legal rights to sponsorship goods, so sponsorship goods in such cases cannot constitute benefits referred to in bribery crimes.

The core criterion for distinguishing corporate sponsorship goods from bribery is that quid pro quo relationships in bribery crimes should be negated in cases where the protected legal interests of bribery crimes – fairness of public officials’ duty execution, social trust, and incorruptibility of official acts – do not appear to be violated. The specific criterion corresponding to this is whether state agencies or local governments complied with relevant laws and administrative procedures when procuring sponsorship goods or funds.

8.2 Transparency and Procedural Legality

Making administrative acts by state agencies or local governments that comply with relevant laws and procedures subject to criminal punishment is a value contradiction. Therefore, regarding administrative acts by state agencies or local governments that are not illegal under administrative law, it is appropriate for criminal law not to intervene in light of the principle of subsidiarity of criminal law.

Ensuring transparency is an important factor in negating the bribery nature of corporate sponsorship goods. If the conclusion process and content of sponsorship contracts are disclosed and related stakeholders can know about them, it can be viewed that social trust in public office, which is a protected legal interest in bribery crimes, is not violated.

Procedural legality is also an important judgment criterion. If sponsorship contracts were concluded and performed in compliance with procedures stipulated in relevant laws, this becomes strong grounds for negating the applicability of bribery crime elements.

8.3 Determination of Criminal Intent

Even if externally normal sponsorship contracts are concluded between state agencies or local governments and corporations, bribery nature can be recognized if public officials in charge of sponsorship or fundraising have criminal motives unrelated to sponsorship hidden.

The presence or absence of criminal intent should be determined by comprehensively considering the following factors. First, whether public officials provided special conveniences in the sponsorship contract conclusion process. Second, whether public officials gained personal benefits separately from sponsorship contracts. Third, whether there were changes in public officials’ official acts before and after sponsorship contract conclusion.

8.4 Analysis of Actual Cases and Precedent Studies

An actual case is the national university professor consulting fee receipt incident. In this case, whether a national university professor receiving separate consulting fees while conducting research related to humidifier disinfectants constituted bribery was at issue.

The Seoul High Court ruled that consulting fees do not constitute bribery. The grounds included: first, consulting contracts were separate from research contracts; second, actual consulting was conducted; third, it was difficult to conclude that consulting fees were excessive; fourth, there were reasons for the company to pay research-related compensation as research funds; fifth, the professor reported consulting fees and paid taxes.

The Supreme Court also viewed the lower court’s judgment as appropriate and confirmed it. This case is an important precedent showing cases where money and goods of similar nature to corporate sponsorship goods may not constitute bribery.

If sponsoring corporations provided sponsorship goods to public officials or public offices non-transparently and general citizens or related people did not know about sponsorship contracts, this does not meet the criteria for negating benefits in bribery crimes. Rather, such cases should be thoroughly investigated from the perspective of bribery crimes.

In conclusion, whether corporate sponsorship goods constitute bribery should be determined by comprehensively considering: ①validity of sponsorship contracts under civil law, ②procedural legality and transparency, ③existence of public officials’ legal rights, ④absence of criminal intent, ⑤use for public interest purposes.

K&P Law Firm recently has experience in obtaining acquittal verdicts by clearly presenting criteria for distinguishing corporate sponsorship goods from bribery crimes in cases where National Assembly members received donations from business people. In particular, we have practical experience in successfully negating the applicability of bribery crime elements by comprehensively proving the legality and transparency of sponsorship contracts, existence of counter-performance, and procedural legality, and based on such experience, we can provide effective legal response measures in similar cases.

K&P Law Firm Practice Cases