[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한범률위반(뇌물),뇌물수수][공1995.2.1.(985),739]
(a)the purport of Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the criteria for determining whether a "government-managed enterprise" is "a government-managed enterprise";
(b) Whether Article 2 subparag. 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which lists the general steel company as one of the government-managed enterprises, is invalid beyond the limit of delegation by the mother law
C. If the defendant voluntarily attended the investigative agency and voluntarily prepared and submitted a written statement stating that he/she received a bribe, and led to the confession of the suspected facts in the investigation process, whether the validity of the number of persons does not affect even if he/she made a statement different from the confession in the investigative agency only on the part of the amount received in the court
A. The purport of Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which considers the executive officers of government-managed enterprises as public officials in the application of the crime of bribery, is to impose strict duty of integrity on the executive officers like the general public, and secure the non-purchase of their duties, since the companies with a strong public nature and the national economy have significant influence on the national policies and the national economy. Thus, whether certain companies constitute "government-managed enterprises" under Article 4 (1) of the same Act shall not be determined solely by the same ownership concept as the government has invested more than 50 percent of the paid-in capital, and the concept of ownership should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the public nature of the companies and the control of the government.
B. On May 28, 198, the government's equity shares with respect to the Posi Complex Co., Ltd., Ltd., which were open to the public by the citizen share distribution method, are 20%, the aggregate of 15%, and less than 50%, since the Korea Development Bank's equity shares with 15%, at the time when the national share distribution was made, the Government has secured 35% equity shares as above in order to ensure that the same company continues to exercise control with respect to the same company at the time of the citizen share distribution, and prevent the same company from amending its articles of incorporation without the approval of the Government, and newly establishing Article 199 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act within the scope of "corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree" as one of the public corporations, which are within the scope of 10% of the total issued shares, and thus, within the scope of 10% of the company's total issued shares, it is prohibited from acquiring shares as 10% or more of the company's total issued shares.
C. If the defendant voluntarily prepared and submitted a written statement stating that he/she received money by attending an investigative agency in relation to a tax investigation of a company which does not have any relation to his/her acceptance of bribe, and all of the facts suspected of acceptance of bribe in the course of the investigation, the defendant shall be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered to the authority responsible for the investigation, and in addition, inasmuch as the defendant was examined as he/she and made a statement stating that he/she is aware of the facts charged, even if he/she made a statement that differs from the confession in the investigation agency only for the relation to duties of the amount received by the defendant in the court, the validity
(a)Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 2 subparagraph 22(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 52(1)
C. Supreme Court Decision 94Do659 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1749) 94Do619 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2675)
Defendant
Prosecutor General, Attorneys Yoon Il-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and three others
Seoul High Court Decision 93No3622 delivered on February 2, 1994
All appeals are dismissed.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 (the grounds of appeal No. 1 in the ordinary course of law, the supplemental appellate brief submitted by the defense counsel, and the supplementary appellate brief submitted by the defense counsel after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief, to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal No. 1).
Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases") provides that "in applying Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, the executive officers of the government-managed enterprise shall be deemed public officials," thereby expanding the scope of the application of the crime of bribery to the executive officers of the government-managed enterprise who are not public officials. Paragraph (2) provides that "the scope of the government-managed enterprise and the executive officers under paragraph (1) shall be determined by Presidential Decree" and delegates the scope of the application to the Presidential Decree. Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which sets the scope of the government-managed enterprise upon delegation, lists the Posi General Iron Co., Ltd. as one of the above government-managed enterprises. In applying the crime of bribery, the purport of Article 4 of the above Aggravated Punishment, etc., which considers the executive officers of the government-managed enterprise as public officials, should not be determined by the government-managed enterprise with a strong character of national policies and the national economy."
Based on the records, since the Government's equity shares in the Posting Posing Posing Posing Posing Posing 1 and 50 percent of the total equity shares in the Posing Posing Posing Posing 2 and the Korea Development Bank's equity shares in the Posing 2 are reduced to 15 percent and the aggregate amount of equity shares in the Posing 15 percent of the Posing Posing 1 and 50 percent of the total amount of the Posing Pos 1 and 35 percent of the Pos Posing 1 and 35 percent of the Posing Posing 1 and 1945 of the 198 Pos Pos 2 and 10 percent of the Pos Pos Posing Pos 1 and 20 percent of the Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos 1 and 30 percent of the Pos Pos 1 and
Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the purport that the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions of December 31, 1983 is invalid on the sole view that the shares held by the Government are more than 50 percent of the capital, unless the concept of the government-managed enterprises under Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment is clearly established by the provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, or that the provision of Article 4 of the Aggravated Punishment Act is not effective because it is replaced by Article 18 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions of December 31,
2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 as well as the second ground of appeal of the defense counsel’s normal study, tin, and leaps.
Examining the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the records, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant received KRW 86,00,000 in relation to his/her duties as a bribe from Libya, a person in charge of overall facilities management of Lanbya Co., Ltd., Japan, as a person in charge of general facilities management of Lanbya Co., Ltd., and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the judgment below erred by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of bribery, such as the theory of lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment
3. We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.
Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, around 10:00, June 15, 1993, after the crime of this case, the defendant had a matter of questioning from the Investigation Department of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office about the investigation of the defendant with respect to the investigation of the tax investigation of the Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste Poste 16:0 on the same day, who does not have any relation to the facts charged of this case. Thus, the defendant voluntarily attended at the above temporary and voluntary meeting
If the circumstances are the same before and after the defendant voluntarily attended the investigation agency and reported the facts of the crime, the defendant shall be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered to the government agency responsible for the investigation. In addition, inasmuch as the defendant made a statement when he was examined as a suspect by the prosecution as to the facts of the crime of this case, even though he made a statement that differs from the confessions made in the investigation agency as to the duty relationship only with the amount received by the above defendant in the court, such as the theory of lawsuit, even though he made a statement that is different from the confessions in the investigation agency, the validity of the number of the defendant is not affected (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do659, May 10, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Do619, Sept.
Therefore, the measures taken by the court below by recognizing that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the facts of the crime of this case by legal mitigation is proper, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the self-denunciation like the theory of the lawsuit, or failing to properly satisfy the reasons. There is no reason for all the arguments.
4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)