온라인 바카라사이트

1. Case Overview

a. Party Represented by Barun Law
Defendant A, a university professor indicted on charges of breach-of-trust bribery for allegedly receiving KRW 20 million in cash from an executive director of Company C, who had participated in a service bid after being selected as an evaluation committee member for a research project commissioned by Institute B, and awarding a high score to the consortium to which Company C belonged.

b. Background of the Case
(1) While investigating alleged violations of the Fair Trade Act arising from bid-rigging among architectural firms, including Company C, the prosecution discovered an audio recording file related to a certain research service for Institute B on D's mobile phone, which had been seized during the investigation. Based on this recording, the prosecution commenced an investigation into Mr. A and other evaluation committee members who participated in the bid evaluation for the research service of Institute B, applying charges such as bribery and breach-of-trust bribery.

(2) During the investigation, the prosecution converted the executive director of Company C into a suspect on charges of offering a bribe and pressed ahead with questioning by presenting the audio recording file. As a result, the executive director of Company C changed his statement and testified that he had paid Mr. A an "honorarium."

(3) Based on this, an investigation into Mr. A for breach-of-trust bribery was initiated, and he was indicted. Although the court of first 온라인 바카라사이트 found that the audio recording file and its transcript constituted illegally obtained evidence because they were unrelated to the Fair Trade Act violations that had triggered the search and seizure, it nonetheless admitted into evidence the suspect interrogation records of the Company C executive and the executive's in-court testimony at first 온라인 바카라사이트. The court reasoned that the causal relationship with the illegally obtained recording had been diluted or severed. On this basis, the court concluded that Mr. A had received KRW 20 million from the Company C's executive and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment and forfeiture of KRW 20 million, ordering him into custody in court.

c. Appellate Proceedings
On appeal, the appellate court accepted all arguments advanced by us and reversed the first-온라인 바카라사이트 judgment that had found Mr. A guilty, ultimately acquitting Mr. A.


2. Judgment

Seoul High Court Decision 2025No886 dated January 21, 2026.


3. Grounds for the Judgment

As at first 온라인 바카라사이트, the appellate court held that D's audio recording file constituted illegally obtained evidence. However, unlike the first-온라인 바카라사이트 court, the appellate court found that the suspect interrogation records of the Company C's executive and the credit card receipts submitted by Company C evidencing visits to Mr. A's university were secondary evidence obtained directly on the basis of the primary illegally obtained recording, and that there were no circumstances indicating that the causal relationship between the primary illegally obtained evidence and the secondary evidence had been diluted or severed.

The appellate court further held that, in light of the fact that the illegally obtained recording was repeatedly presented and cited during the first-온라인 바카라사이트 trial, it was difficult to conclude that the in-court testimony of the Company C's executive and other related witnesses at first 온라인 바카라사이트 was given freely and voluntarily, unaffected by the illegally obtained evidence. The court emphasized that the mere progress of trial proceedings or the passage of time alone was insufficient to deem the causal relationship severed. Accordingly, the appellate court determined that all such testimony constituted secondary evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence and therefore lacked evidentiary admissibility.

Lastly, with respect to an Excel file submitted by the Company C's executive at first 온라인 바카라사이트, which appeared to list the evaluation committee members for the service and included Defendant A, the appellate court held that the file was submitted while the influence of the illegally obtained evidence remained in effect, and further lacked admissibility because it was an electronic document copy whose identity with the original had not been proven.

After excluding all evidence lacking admissibility, the appellate court concluded that the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the charged facts against Mr. A beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore acquitted him.


4. Our Arguments and Role

We comprehensively presented existing Supreme Court precedents concerning secondary evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence, as well as recent Supreme Court rulings holding that in-court testimony given after illegally obtained evidence has been presented or cited also constitutes inadmissible secondary evidence. We logically argued that these principles should apply equally to Mr. A's case. The appellate court cited the legal principles set forth in our appellate brief and found that most of the evidence unfavorable to Mr. A lacked evidentiary admissibility. As a result, we successfully overturned the first-온라인 바카라사이트 conviction in its entirety and secured an acquittal for the defendant on appeal.


5. Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reaffirms the legal principles governing secondary evidence derived from illegally obtained evidence, and, in particular, clearly holds that witness testimony given after prosecutors present primary illegally obtained evidence likewise constitutes inadmissible secondary evidence, as the causal relationship with the primary illegally obtained evidence cannot be deemed diluted or severed. In this respect, the judgment is significant in that it reinforces the recent trend in Supreme Court jurisprudence aimed at eradicating investigative practices involving unlawful evidence collection by investigative authorities.


□ Attorneys in 온라인 바카라사이트: Kim Yong-ha, Park Sung-ho, Kweon Hyuck-jun, Kim Chae-hyun