此前报道： 金建希首案一审宣判获刑1年8个月 当地时间1月28日下午，韩国首尔中央地方法院就前总统尹锡悦夫人金建希所涉股价操纵、收受高价礼 品、接受无偿舆论调查等犯罪嫌疑进行一审宣判。法院判处金建希有期徒刑1年零8个月，同时追缴犯罪 所得韩币1281万元，约合人民币6.26万元。金建希就此成为韩国宪政史上首位与前总统同时被法律定罪 的前第一夫人。 法庭在宣判中认为，金建希所涉嫌疑中股价操纵以及接受无偿舆论调查等部分缺乏证据、犯罪不成立， 认定收受宗教团体提供的高价礼品部分犯罪事实成立，遂作出上述判罚。法院表示，金建希作为时任韩 国总统尹锡悦夫人，理应恪守廉洁，但却将自身身份地位用于获利手段，应受到法律惩处。 在上述判决作出后，"金建希特检组"表示将对其中部分无罪判决结果提起上诉。特检组认为，法院在共 犯认定、政治资金捐赠认定以及请托认定等方面的判断，逻辑难以理解、完全无法接受。同时，法院对 有罪部分所作量刑，结合案件具体情况来看也明显不足。 金建希所涉案件包括德意志汽车公司股价操纵、高价名牌商品收受、总统办公室及官邸迁移介入、非法 政治资金收受等，多项嫌疑涉嫌违反韩国《资本市场法》《政治资金法》以及《特定犯罪 ...

（来源：中国反邪教） 当地时间28日下午，韩国法院就前总统尹锡悦夫人金建希所涉股价操纵以及收受宗教团体高价礼品等违法嫌疑进 行一审宣判，金建希获刑1年8个月。 金建希（资料图） 金建希所涉案件包括德意志汽车公司股价操纵、高价名牌商品收受、总统办公室及官邸迁移介入、非法政治资金 收受等，多项嫌疑涉嫌违反韩国《资本市场法》、《政治资金法》以及《特定犯罪加重处罚法》中关于"斡旋受 贿"的条款，即利用自身所处位置以及影响力等接受请托间接受贿。当天法院的宣判是金建希身负多项嫌疑中韩国 法院作出的首次一审判决。 首尔中央地方法院2025年8月12日签发对金建希的逮捕令，她随后一直处于被羁押状态。 本文转载自环球时报 ...

此前，韩国检方以多项嫌疑要求法院判处金建希15年有期徒刑并处以罚金。 首尔中央地方法院2025年8月12日签发对金建希的逮捕令，她随后一直处于被羁押状态。（总台记者 唐 鑫） 当地时间28日下午，韩国法院将就前总统尹锡悦夫人金建希所涉股价操纵以及收受宗教团体高价礼品等 违法嫌疑进行一审宣判。韩国首尔中央地方法院28日14时10分开庭宣判，宣判过程将通过视频实时进行 直播。 金建希所涉案件包括德意志汽车公司股价操纵、高价名牌商品收受、总统办公室及官邸迁移介入、非法 政治资金收受等，多项嫌疑涉嫌违反韩国《资本市场法》、《政治资金法》以及《特定犯罪加重处罚 法》中关于"斡旋受贿"的条款，即利用自身所处位置以及影响力等接受请托间接受贿。当天法院的宣判 是金建希身负多项嫌疑中韩国法院作出的首次一审判决。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the regulations and consequences related to engaging in paid intermediary activities by party members, emphasizing the need for careful analysis to distinguish between violations, bribery, and other illegal activities [1][2]. Group 1: Definition and Regulations - The "Regulations on Disciplinary Actions of the Communist Party of China" outlines six behaviors that violate regulations regarding profit-making activities, with the fourth being engaging in paid intermediary activities [1]. - Paid intermediary activities are defined as profit-driven actions that involve facilitating communication and transactions between buyers and sellers or service providers and clients for a fee [1]. - Disciplinary actions for engaging in such activities vary based on severity, ranging from warnings to expulsion from the party [1]. Group 2: Distinction of Violations - Engaging in paid intermediary activities is considered a disciplinary violation, while "intermediary bribery" involves using one's position to gain improper benefits for a requester [2]. - The article highlights the similarities and differences between paid intermediary activities, intermediary bribery, and the crime of introducing bribery, stressing the importance of analyzing the role of authority and fairness in the intermediary process [2]. Group 3: Case Studies - Recent cases reported by disciplinary inspection agencies reveal instances of violations related to paid intermediary activities, including the expulsion of Zhang Anmin, former chairman of Shandong Agricultural Development Credit Guarantee Co., for serious violations [3]. - The actions of party members engaging in paid intermediary activities undermine fair competition and disrupt market order, leading to potential corruption and abuse of power [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal distinctions between two forms of bribery in China: "intermediary bribery" and "influence bribery," highlighting the nuances in their definitions and applications under the law [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Definitions - Intermediary bribery occurs when a state worker uses their position to facilitate benefits for a third party, while influence bribery involves close associates of state workers leveraging their relationships to gain benefits [1][2]. - The key difference lies in the nature of the relationship between the parties involved; intermediary bribery is strictly between state workers, whereas influence bribery can involve non-state workers as well [1][3]. Group 2: Case Analysis - The case presented involves two individuals, A and B, who have a professional relationship and a history of working together, leading to a request for assistance in a project that resulted in a bribe [2][4]. - There are differing opinions on how to classify the actions of A, with some arguing for ordinary bribery, others for influence bribery, and a third perspective supporting intermediary bribery based on the nature of A's position and actions [3][4]. Group 3: Judicial Interpretation - The Supreme People's Court has clarified that "using one's position" can include both direct authority and indirect influence through professional relationships [4][5]. - The analysis of the case suggests that A's actions were primarily influenced by their official position rather than personal relationships, supporting the classification of the behavior as intermediary bribery [5][6].

Core Points - The case involves a public official, referred to as "甲," who engaged in illegal profit-making activities while holding various government positions, leading to charges of bribery and embezzlement [4][5][9] - The investigation revealed that "甲" utilized his official capacity to facilitate business opportunities for private individuals, resulting in significant financial gains for himself [6][7][12] Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - "甲" invested 4.3 million yuan in a factory project during his tenure as a police chief, with a personal investment of 2.15 million yuan, and received a total of 4 million yuan in rental income from 2008 to 2023 [4][5] - Over the years, "甲" accepted bribes totaling approximately 14.88 million yuan, with some amounts being unsuccessful attempts [5][6] Investigation Process - The investigation began in December 2022, leading to formal charges in July 2024, with "甲" ultimately receiving a 12-year prison sentence and fines totaling 1.2 million yuan [8][9] Legal Interpretations - The collaboration between "甲" and other public officials in investment activities was deemed a violation of disciplinary regulations, as it directly related to "甲's" official duties and the potential for personal financial gain [10][11] - The court determined that the rental income and compensation received by "甲" from the factory project constituted bribes, as he did not actively participate in the management or investment of the project [12][13] Bribery and Embezzlement Details - "甲" was found to have facilitated business opportunities for private individuals, receiving benefits in return, including cash and other financial advantages [14][15] - The case also involved the employment of "甲's" relative in a company controlled by a businessman, which was interpreted as a means of providing bribes through salary payments and social security contributions [18][19]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal classification of a case involving a public official, highlighting the distinction between bribery and fraud in the context of influence peddling [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Overview - The case involves a public official (甲) who accepted 1 million yuan from a private entrepreneur (乙) in exchange for a promise to influence another official (丙) to assist乙 in avoiding criminal charges [1][2]. - There are three differing opinions on how to classify 甲's actions: as fraud, as attempted bribery, or as completed bribery [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Framework - According to Article 388 of the Criminal Law, public officials who use their position to obtain improper benefits for others and accept money can be charged with bribery, specifically influence peddling [2][5]. - Influence peddling is not a separate crime but a form of bribery that protects the integrity of public officials' duties [2][4]. Group 3: Analysis of Actions - 甲's actions meet the criteria for using his position to provide improper benefits, as he had the potential to influence丙 due to their relationship [3][5]. - The payment of 1 million yuan was based on 乙's trust in 甲's influence, indicating a direct relationship between the payment and 甲's position [6]. Group 4: Conclusion - The article concludes that 甲's acceptance of the payment, despite not having communicated with丙, constitutes completed influence peddling, as the act of accepting the money itself indicates a breach of duty [6].