A. On Oct. 1, 2006, Defendant A, at the office of the head of the Epic partnership located in Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, the Defendant joined the Epic partnership members so that F, who was the head of the Epic partnership members, can use the Epic partnership members only, and issued KRW 1 million in return for the request for request.

As a result, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the duties of E.S. president.

B. On Oct. 1, 2006, Defendant B, at the office of the head of the Epic partnership located in Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, issued a request for approval to join the Epic partnership members so that F, who was the head of Epic partnership members, can only use the Epic partnership members, and issued two million won in return.

As a result, the Defendant offered a bribe in relation to the duties of E.S. president.

2. We examine the judgment, and the person who is in the so-called crime of bribery such as the crime of bribery and the crime of acceptance of bribe is disadvantageously unfavorable to the person who is in the so-called crime of bribery. However, even though it is necessary for the existence of an act of confrontationing with each other, and is punished in accordance with the separate penal provisions, since each of the elements of the act is realized and is punished in accordance with the separate penal provisions, the person who is in the pro-con relationship does not

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4842, Feb. 12, 2015). Therefore, even if a public prosecution was instituted against F, who was the president of a fisheries cooperative, for the crime of acceptance of bribe, the statute of limitations against the Defendants is not suspended.

Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 249 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007).