direct menu
  • Clean Portal
  • How to Report
  • Violation of Improper Solicitation and Graft Act

Clean Portal

Violation of Improper Solicitation and Graft Act(Case of violation)

Case of violation

Cases of improper solicitation

  • (Approval) Person A, who owns some land in a Restricted Development Zone, solicited an approval from a public official in charge (Person C) through a friend (Person B), knowing that the land failed to meet requirements for approval of the alterations of land shape and quality under the Restricted Development Zone Law.
  • (Mitigation in administrative penalties) A high-ranking public official of a central government agency (Person A) asked the head of the Division of Healthcare Resources Policy of another government agency (Person C) to mitigate the administrative penalty given to a close friend and doctor (Person B), knowing that the doctor was about to lose his medical license due to a violation of the Medical Law and that there was no rationale for such mitigation.
  • (Recruitment) The daughter (Person B) of a division head at a central government agency (Person A), went in for the recruitment competition among lawyer license holders, which was conducted by a local government office. Person A asked the personnel manager (Person C) interviewing her to give her a higher interview score so that she could get a job.
  • (Trade secrets)A textile-related business owner (Person A) heard that a competitor had applied for a patent on a new material-based textile. Person A then asked a patent attorney (Person C) to obtain information on the patent from a public official (Person B) who was in charge of examining the application.
  • (Contract) Person A, who was running a construction business, was informed that a national university had confirmed its plan to waterproof its facilities (with a budget of KRW 50 million) and asked contracting personnel (Person C) through a friend and professor at the university concerned (Person B) to choose Person A as contractor by splitting the construction budget into smaller amounts of KRW 20 million or less and allowing for a private contract.
  • (Subsidy) Person A, who was running a daycare center, asked a public official (Person C) in charge of subsidy procedures, through a local government council member (Person B), to give Person A a government subsidy though the daycare center was not qualified for the subsidy.
  • (Utilization, profit, and possession of manufacturing, supply, and management services) Person A tried to gain admittance as a patient at a national university hospital but discovered that he was on a lengthy waiting list. Person A then contacted the chief administrator of the hospital(Person B) through a mutual friend (Person C) to prioritize the hospitalization of Person A.
  • (Grade) A high school senior (Person A) scored 75 points in mathematics on a final second semester exam. His father, a Korean language teacher working at the same school (Person B), asked the mathematics teacher (Person C) to give his son a higher math score resulting in a better grade.
  • (Physical examination for conscription) Person A asked a military doctor (Person D) through his acquaintance(Person C) who was an officer at the Military Manpower Administration of Korea, to declare his son (Person B) as “Grade 4 social service personnel” at the physical examination for conscription so that his son could serve as a public service worker within the jurisdiction of Seoul.

Graft cases

  • A public official (Person A) in charge of product inspection received a gift worth KRW 80,000 from an executive of an associate business (Person B).
  • A public official (Person A) in charge of cultural property management received KRW 100,000 from an employee of a cultural property facility in the jurisdiction (Person B).
  • A public official (Person A) in charge of a contract received gifts worth KRW 1.5 million on five occasions including a meal worth KRW 200,000 from a representative of a supplier (Person B).
  • Public officials (Persons A and B) in charge of performance were served a meal worth KRW 50,000 each from a representative of a production agency (Person C) which was scheduled to organize a performance event.
  • A public official of a local government (Person A) was served meals worth KRW 100,000 and 40,000 each from a representative of a contractor in the jurisdiction (Person B).
  • A manager (Person A) and a team leader (Person B) of a local government were served a meal worth KRW 50,000 from an athletic association of the local government concerned.
  • An employee of a public institution (Person A) received a gift certificate worth KRW 1 million from a construction company executive (Person B) which was under his supervision.
  • An employee of a public institution (Person A) received KRW 2 million from an executive of a contractor (Person B) which conducted construction work for the public institution.
  • A superior (Person A) received a gift worth KRW 100,000 from a subordinate (Person B) who asked for a higher performance evaluation rating in return.
  • A university professor (Person A) received gifts worth KRW 300,000 including a gift certificate from nine students who chipped in KRW 30,000-40,000 for those gifts.
  • Two police officers (Persons A and B) received gifts worth KRW 700,000 each from a duty-related person.

Cases of receiving excess rewards from external lectures, etc.

  • A fifth-grade public official of a central government agency (Person A) delivered a two-hour lecture upon the request of an affiliated public agency and received compensation of KRW 800,000, which exceeds the upper limit for external lectures, which is set at KRW 600,000 under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act.

Recruitment corruption cases

  • (Solicitation for personnel affairs including promotion and recruitment) An organization hired a person recommended by an acquaintance of its head. The first head asked an interviewer to hire the person, who went on to receive a low score during the interview process. The head later suspended the evaluation process and once again urged a personnel management employee to hire the person in question.
  • (Fabrication of interview data) The head of a government agency fraudulently recruited a person close to the head of a local government in a competitive recruitment examination for experienced staff by raising the interview score or fabricating the score card of the applicant.
  • (Unreasonable order related to recruitment) The head of an organization received the resume of his former colleague and ordered a personnel management employee to change the recruitment qualifications so that the former colleague could be hired as an executive of the organization.
  • (Offering of favors during the process of conversion into permanent workers) A person was involved in the process of deliberation on the conversion of temporary workers into permanent workers. However, that person had a personal relationship with one of the temporary workers concerned who failed to meet the requirements and thereby should not have been qualified for the conversion.