beta
(영문) 대법원 2013.03.14 2013도487

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The acceptance of a bribe in respect of the part of the bribery amounting to KRW 50 million refers to the acceptance of money and valuables with the intention of acquiring it. Thus, if it is recognized that there was no intention of acquiring it, such as the acceptance of it, but without knowing that it is a bribe, immediately return it, or the person who has received it was aware that it was a bribe, and there was no intention of acquiring it, such as return of it by the intention of returning it to be returned in view of the opportunity after the next day, the acceptance of the bribe cannot be deemed to have been made. However, if the defendant received a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, even if the amount was more than what the defendant predicted and returned it later,

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s judgment on the charge of accepting a bribe of KRW 50 million in relation to the duties of G employees deemed public officials is just in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention to obtain or obtain a bribe in the crime of bribery and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention to obtain a bribe in the crime of bribery, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the bribery amounting to USD 10 million and USD 10,000, the bribery amount is directly protected by the legal interest of the law, based on the fairness of performance of duties and trust in society, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established if the entire amount of money of a public official's duties and funds is in a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to consider the existence of solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship between each individual act of performance, and there is no need to specify the performance of duties.

On the other hand.