[특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(수재)][공1994.5.15.(968),1372]
(a) The legal interest protected in the crime of bribery and the scope of duties;
B. The meaning of "duty" under Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
A. The legal interest to be protected in the crime of bribery is the process of performing duties and the impossibility of purchasing duties. Thus, the existence of a mandatory violation, the existence of a solicitation, and the time of acceptance of a bribe does not determine when there is a request. Therefore, even if a bribe is a duty in the past or is not actually in charge according to the duties and division of duties in the future, it can be deemed as a duty of bribery.
B. "The officer or employee of a financial institution" in Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refers to all the duties that the officer or employee of a financial institution handles in connection with his/her position. It includes not only the duties belonging to his/her authority but also the activities that are closely related thereto and those that are actually handled in relation to his/her duties. It does not distinguish whether his/her duties are based on an independent authority or based on the position to assist
(a) Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 5(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes
A. Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1760), 87Do1472 delivered on September 22, 1987 (Gong1987, 1677), 89Do597 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1530). Supreme Court Decision 89Do890 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1319)
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Busan High Court Decision 93No908 delivered on September 23, 1993
All appeals are dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. Upon examining the records, the court below affirmed the measures that affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the duty relationship of money and valuables, such as the theory of lawsuit.
2. Bribery is a process in the performance of duties and the non-purchase of occupational act. Thus, the existence of a mandatory violation, the time of solicitation, and the time of acceptance does not belong to the point of time. Thus, even if a duty is not actually performed according to the duties and division of duties in the past or in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568 delivered on September 25, 1984). "An officer or employee of a financial institution" under Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes refers to all duties that a financial institution deals with in its position. It includes not only the duties belonging to its authority, but also all acts that are closely related to such duties and are actually handled in connection with such duties. It is not a party member (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do890 delivered on July 25, 198).
Therefore, the duty relationship of money and valuables received cannot be denied merely because Defendant 2 did not perform a new loan during the first trial period, such as theory of lawsuit, or Defendant 2 was not a person in charge of loan during that period.
3. According to the records, there is no circumstance or circumstance to suspect that the Defendants’ confessions or partial confessions in the police, the prosecution, and the first instance court did not have any arbitrariness, and in light of the contents of the copy (No. 1) of the seized confidential account book, the lower court determined that the facts constituting a crime in the judgment based on various evidence duly admitted by the first instance court after the examination of evidence, and recognized that the Defendants received money and valuables from the co-defendants of the lower court in relation to the bank lending business as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation to the duties of the money and valuables received by the court of first instance.
Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)