Additional collection method where the amount of accepted bribery has been granted to another person again;

Even if the Defendants again provided the money received as a bribe to others after the acceptance of the bribe, the subject of the acceptance of the bribe is only a method of consuming the money received by the Defendants and it is merely a method of consuming the money received by the Defendants. Therefore, the entire amount of the acceptance of the bribe should be collected from the Defendants.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2459 Decided June 22, 1982

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jae-hwan (Defendant 2), Kim Jae-in (Defendant 1, 3, and 4)

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1612 delivered on August 11, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendants and their respective attorneys’ grounds of appeal No. 1.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of this case against the defendants, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged.

2. We examine Defendant 2, his defense counsel, and Defendant 4’s grounds of appeal, respectively.

Even in cases where the Defendants offered money as a bribe to others after the acceptance of the bribe, each of the parties to the acceptance of the bribe is merely a method of consuming the money received by the acceptance of the bribe. Thus, the court below's decision that additionally collected all of the amount of the acceptance from the Defendants is just (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2459, Jun. 22, 1982) and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3 by Defendant 1, 3, 4, and Defendant 2’s defense counsel.

As in this case, a judgment of less than ten years of imprisonment with labor cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing under the Criminal Procedure Act. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)