뇌물범죄의 체계와 삼각뇌물의 형사책임

The system of bribery crime and criminal responsibility for triangular bribery

이 글은 복잡하고 난해한 현행법의 뇌물범죄의 체계와 구조를 보고, 이로 인해 해석이 어려워진 이른바 삼각뇌물의 형사책임을 검토하고 있다. 삼각뇌물은 공무원이 스스로 뇌물을 받지 않고 제3자가 뇌물을 받게 하는 경우를 말한다. 형법은 수뢰죄와제3자수뢰죄를 구별하고 있다. 이 글은 전자의 수뢰죄를 자기수뢰죄라고 부른다. 공무원이 스스로 뇌물을 받지 않고 제3자가 뇌물을 받게 하였을지라도 공무원과 제3자가 경제공동체이어서 공무원을 뇌물의 귀속주체로 볼 수 있으면 공무원에게 자기수뢰죄가 성립한다. 그런데 제3자가 뇌물의 귀속주체일지라도 제3자가 공무원과공동정범관계에 있는 경우는 공무원이 직접 받은 것과 같이 볼 수 있으므로 자기수뢰죄가 성립한다. 이것이 대법원 판례의 입장이다. 이는 옳지 않다. 뇌물범죄의 체계와 구조를 보면 자기수뢰죄와 제3자수뢰죄를 구별하고 있으므로 제3자가 공무원과공동정범관계일지라도 제3자가 뇌물의 귀속주체이면 제3자수뢰죄의 성립 여부가문제된다고 봐야하기 때문이다. 공무원이 스스로 뇌물을 받지 않고 제3자가 뇌물을 받게 한 경우 제3자가 뇌물의 귀속주체일지라도 제3자가 공무원의 수뢰에 공동정범으로 가담하면 제3자에게 수뢰죄가 성립하는 반면, 교사방조범으로 가담하면 제3자수뢰죄의 교사방조범이 성립한다. 이것이 대법원 판례의 입장이다. 이는 옳지 않다. 정범인 공무원의 형사책임을먼저 결정하고 가담자인 제3자의 형사책임을 결정하는 것이 아니라 거꾸로 제3자가가담한 정도나 형태에 따라 정범의 형사책임을 결정하는 것이기 때문이다.

This article examines the complex system of bribery crimes under the current law, and examines the criminal responsibility of the public official and the third person in so-called triangular bribery. A triangular bribery refers to a case where a public official funnels a bribe to a third person in connection with his or her duties. Apart from the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129(1), the Criminal Act stipulates the crime of bribery against a third person in Article 130. The constituent act of the crime of bribery against a third party is an act of causing a bribe to be given to a third party on acceptance of an illegal solicitation in connection with his or her duties. The Criminal Act distinguishes between the crime of acceptance of bribe and the crime of bribery against a third person according to the bribe taker. In this article the former is referred to as the self-bribery offence, and the latter is referred to as the third-party bribery offence. And the bribe taker means the person who benefits from bribery or whom the bribe belongs to. Even if a public official does not accept a bribe on his own and a third party accepts a bribe, if the public official and the third party are in an economic community and the public official can be regarded as the bribe taker, self-bribery offence is established against the public official. However, even if the third party is the bribe taker whom the bribe belongs to, the case where the third party is in co-principals relationship with a public official can be regarded as if the public official received it directly, and thus self-bribery offence is established. This is the position of the Supreme Court. However this is not correct. This is because the system and structure of bribery crimes distinguishes between the self-bribery offence and the third-party bribery offence so even if a third party is in joint principal offender relationship with a public official if the third party is the bribe taker, whether the crime of bribery against a third person is established becomes a matter at issue. If a public official does not accept a bribe by himself and a third party accepts a bribe, even if the third party is the bribe taker, if the third party joins the public official s commission as joint principal offender, the third party is convicted of self-bribery offence, whereas if he participates as instigator or accessories of the Criminal Act, instigator or accessories committed against third-party bribery offence is established. This is the position of the Supreme Court. However this is not correct. This is because the criminal responsibility of principal offender is not determined first and the criminal responsibility of a third party, which is a participant, but conversely, the criminal responsibility of principal offender is determined according to the degree or type of participation by the third party.