[뇌물수수][공2001.3.15.(126),584]
[1] Whether Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act, which provides that the executives and employees of a local government-invested public corporation and local government public corporation shall be regarded as public officials in the application of bribery under the Criminal Act, violates the principle of equality under the Constitution, the principle of statutory reservation
[2] The meaning of the duty in the crime of bribery
[1] The purpose of the Local Public Enterprises Act is to contribute to the development of local autonomy and the promotion of residents' welfare by prescribing matters necessary for the management of a company established and managed by a local government directly or through the establishment of a corporation, and rationalizing its management. The scope of its application is the public projects such as water supply business, industrial waterworks business, tramway business, automobile transportation business, local road business, underground road business, housing business, land development business, and medical business, etc. The local public corporations and local public corporations provided by the Local Public Enterprises Act are established to carry out the above public projects, and their officers and employees require integrity and integrity of public officials, and purchase of money and valuables, etc. in relation to their duties requires strict punishment by deeming them as public officials, and thus, it is not necessary to ensure the normal operation of public projects and the fairness of corporate affairs, despite the public nature of their duties, and there is no specific provision of Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Urban Redevelopment and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Government Officers and No.
[2] In the crime of bribery, the term "duty" includes not only the duty under the control of the law, but also the act closely related to the duty, or the act of duties under the custom or the actual jurisdiction, and the act of duties under the control of the person who can assist or affect the person who made the decision
[1] Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act, Articles 11(1), 12(1), and 37(2) of the Constitution / [2] Article 129 of the Criminal Act, Article 83 of the Local Public Enterprises Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do2530 delivered on February 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 949), Supreme Court Decision 99Do2530 delivered on November 9, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 2545 delivered on December 10, 199), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4022 delivered on January 28, 200 (Gong200Sang, 639), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4022 delivered on January 28, 200 (Gong200Sang, 639), Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do3697 delivered on June 15, 200 (Gong200Sang, 639), Supreme Court Decision 19Do4071 delivered on June 15, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4071 delivered on June 15, 200).
Defendant
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 99No2759 delivered on December 10, 1999
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The purpose of the Local Public Enterprises Act is to contribute to the development of local autonomy and the promotion of residents' welfare by prescribing matters necessary for the management of a company established and managed by a local government directly or through the establishment of a corporation, and rationalizing its management. The scope of its application is the public projects such as water supply business, industrial waterworks business, tramway business, automobile transportation business, local road business, underground road business, housing business, land development business, and medical business; a local government-invested public corporation and local government public corporation provided for in the Local Public Enterprises Act established to conduct the above public projects and its officers and employees require integrity and integrity of public officials, and the purchase of money and valuables, etc. in relation to their duties requires strict punishment by deeming them as public officials, and thus, it is not necessary to guarantee the normal operation of public projects and fairness of corporate affairs; the above provisions of Article 3 of the Local Public Enterprises Act concerning the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and Article 18 of the Local Public Enterprises Act concerning officers and employees of the government-invested public corporation are not the same or similar acts as bribery of public officials; the grounds for appeal against Article 13 of the Act.
2. In the crime of bribery, a public official’s duty includes not only a public official’s duty under the law, but also a public official’s act closely related to his/her duty, or a duty act under customary or practical control, and a duty act under which he/she may assist or influence a person who has decision-making authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2950, Dec. 10, 199).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on this point on the ground that the defendant, as the director of the accounting division of the medical center of the first Metropolitan City in the local government-invested public corporation, is in charge of paying the price of medicines supplied from the above medical company, and the fact that the above medical center received money and valuables in relation to his duties can be sufficiently recognized as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. In light of the records and the above legal principles, it is reasonable to review them, and there
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)