A Study on Relevance to Public Duties in The Improper Solicitation and Graft Act

The present study examines the ambiguity and lack of clarity surrounding the interpretive criteria for determining “Relevance to Public Duties” under the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. While the Act fundamentally prohibits public officials from receiving gifts or benefits from persons relevant to their official duties, the determination of such relevance plays a central role in assessing the legality of the Act. However, the authoritative interpretations provided by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission often apply different standards depending on the perceived “degree” of relevance—using terms such as “direct” or “close” relevance—which has led to considerable confusion among both the general public and practitioners. This paper analyzes Supreme Court and lower court decisions, arguing that the existence of relevance should be determined as a binary condition and that the legality of benefit receipt should be judged separately based on whether an exception applies. Such an approach may overcome the limitations of interpretations that rely on the intensity of relevance and could enhance both legal stability and predictability in the enforcement of the Act.