Cases where it is recognized as a bribe that a person acquired a cooling machine with a significant difference in the price in the form of exchange;

A bribe is not necessarily required to receive a bribe without compensation and is sufficient when there is a quid pro quo relationship related to the public official's duties, so that the gold cooling 1 which the defendant received is exchanged with the Japanese air cooling system that the defendant was in possession, or there is a considerable amount of difference in the price, and it is obvious on the records that the defendant obtained a position to prevent the illegal outflow of the foreign currency smoke of the above calbic acid, and it is proved that the calcium acquired by the defendant is not acquired by exchange but by the exchange, and it is sufficient to regard it as a bribe.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and six others

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court (70Da28007)

(1) Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 1, 2, and 3 is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months and by a fine of fifty thousand won, and by imprisonment for a year and a fine of fifty thousand won, respectively.

From among detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, one hundred and twenty-five days each shall be included in the above imprisonment.

When Defendant 1 and 2 fail to pay the above fine, the period calculated by converting 1,000 won into one day and these Defendants shall be confined in the old house, respectively.

Defendant 1 and 2 to additionally collect KRW 89,490,240 from Defendant 1 and 2.

To issue an order for provisional payment of the amount equivalent to each fine to Defendant 1 and 2.

Defendant 3 is not guilty

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1 and 2, the offering of a bribe to Defendant 3 is not guilty.

(2) The appeal filed by Defendant 4, 5, and 6 and the prosecutor’s appeal filed by Nonindicted 9 are all dismissed.

(1) The summary of Defendant 1’s appeal is the first, the fact-finding of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s 5th anniversary of the fact-finding of the lower judgment, and it is clear that there was no illegality from 1966 to 1967 on the charge of fraud. The lower court, despite the fact-finding that Defendant 1’s 6th anniversary of the fact-finding of the lower court’s 5th anniversary of the fact-finding of the Defendant’s imprisonment, was an unrecognizable defense counsel’s 9th anniversary of the fact-finding of the Defendant’s 6th anniversary of the fact-finding of the Defendant’s imprisonment, the lower court found the Defendant to have committed an act of violation of the rules of evidence against the Defendant’s first and the Defendant’s new sales of the Defendant’s 6th anniversary of the fact-finding of this case’s 4th anniversary of the fact-finding of the Defendant’s new sales of the Defendant’s 7th anniversary of the fact-finding of this case’s imprisonment.

(2) 피고인 2의 항소이유의 요지는, 첫째로, 이건 검사의 공소사실 1항 내지 3항에서 피고인은 상피고인 1과 공모한 것으로 되어 있으나 그러한 사실이 없으며 피고인이 검찰에서 그와 같이 진술한 것은 상피고인이 그와 같이 진술하면 속히 빠저 나갈수 있다고 꼬였기 때문에 한 허위진술이며 따라서 원심은 채증법칙을 어겨 사실인정을 그릇쳤다는 취지의 주장이고 둘째로, 피고인은 상피고인 1의 간청에 못이겨 향리의 전답을 담보로 제공하고 금 340,000원을 기채하여 범아물산에 공여하면서 동 회사에 관여하게 되었던 바 투자한 자금을 회수하지 못함은 물론 급료도 제대로 받아내지 못하였으며, 동 회사는 피고인 1의 독단과 아집에 의하여 운영되어 왔으며 피고인은 다만 피고인 1과의 주종의 관계에서 동 회사를 사퇴하지도 못하고 그를 쫓아다니기에 바빴던 것이며 그 동안에 8개월의 구금생활을 통하여 피고인의 죄책을 깊이 뉘우치고 반성하였는 바, 이러한 정상을 참작할 때 원심의 양형이 지나치게 무거우니 피고인의 전도를 생각하여 관용을 베풀어 달라는데 있다.

(3) The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 4 is as follows: First, the court below found that the defendant conspireds with the defendant 1, 2, and the defendant 2 in the court below's decision that he obtained considerable profits by selling them during the process of manufacturing and illegally discharging the manufacturing commencements in collusion with the defendant 2 in the above judgment; however, the defendant did not have conspired with them nor did he participate in the crime at all, but the defendant entered into a subcontract for military payment business with the company and the US military unit with the collection of the amount of KRW 1 million leased to the company, and the court below found that the fact-finding was conducted and affected the judgment after the fact-finding was conducted. Second, the prosecutor's amendment of the prosecutor's bill of amendment on November 10, 190, found that the defendant was only charged with the second facts at the time of the original trial and did not request the judgment, and it did not reach the judgment of the court below that it did not have any effect on the defendant's violation of the rules of evidence.

(4) The prosecutor’s reasons for appeal against Defendant 3 are light in sentencing. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant’s defense counsel is as follows: First, the court below held that the defendant was guilty, and that the defendant received a bribe of KRW 50,000 upon receiving a bribe of KRW 10,000 from the defendant’s defense counsel.

① As a result of the Defendant’s investigation into a war case of illegal outflow from the beginning of the foreign currency, there was doubt that his subordinate employees did not leak out from the panscopic acid, but no firm evidence was recorded, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of notification was imposed on each interested party based on the evidence revealed until August 22, 1968, and the investigation experience was well-founded, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was committed on his job by taking the above position of the Defendant’s wife, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was committed on duty.

② The Defendant received entertainment equivalent to KRW 50,00 with Defendant 1 and three others at “training” on December 12, 1968, but this is not a case to the effect that he did not detect any criminal act related to a crime related to a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime of a crime, and that Nonindicted 1 would operate the company in the future, and that he received a substitute and received it after the lapse of not less than four months, it does not conform to the empirical rule to view it as a case against an illegal wife.

3. As to the fact that the defendant received gold KRW 50,00,00 in a trial court, the defendant consistently denies it in the trial court, and the defendant 2 made the same statement as the above defendant 3, and there is contradiction between the defendant 1's statement and the above defendant 7 and the defendant 2's statement. However, the statements in the court of first instance and the prosecutor's office are especially a so-called professional statement, the contents of which are non-indicted 3's statement. In particular, although the defendant's statement in the court of first instance and the prosecutor's office of the defendant 1 received gold KRW 50,000 after the four-month period from the original trial, since it is the case after the defendant received gold KRW 50,00,000, the defendant's statement cannot be believed as a case of illegal disposal in light of the empirical rule, it is reasonable to judge that there is a lack of proximate causal relation after the crime of acceptance of bribe after the defendant's death, and even if it did not have any influence on the judgment, the judgment of the defendant's guilty.

(5) 피고인 5 변호인의 항소이유의 요지는 첫째로, 피고인은 상피고인 7에게 냉장고 대금으로 금 85,000원을 지급하고 정당하게 냉장고를 샀으며 이를 뇌물로서 수수한 것이 아닌 바, 이점 일건기록상 명백함에도 불구하고 원심이 뇌물수수로 판시하였으니 원심은 필경 채증법칙을 어겨 사실을 그릇 인정하였다고 함에 있고 둘째로, 피고인을 정당하게 수사하여 공소외 4, 5 양인에게 벌금의 통고처분을 하였을 뿐더러 1969.2.28.자 "외화판매연초사범 조사보고"라 하며 그 수사결과를 직속 상급관청인 전매청에 보고하였던 것으로 피고인으로서 취할 행정조치는 모두 취하였던 것이 일건기록상 명백함에도 불구하고 직무유기로 판시하였으니 이는 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실인정을 그르쳤다고 함에 있고 셋째로, 원심은 금성냉장고의 시가를 제대로 밝히지 않았으며 또 냉장고의 전달일자가 1968.10.하순경이고 피고인이 직무를 유기하였다는 날자는 1969.2.5.인 바 위 냉장고의 수수와 직무유기와 어떠한 관련을 맺고 있는지를 전혀 심리하지 않은 심리미진의 위법이 있다고 함에 있고 넷째로, 원심은 피고인이 냉장고 대금으로 85,000원의 대금지급사실을 인정하면서도 냉장고 1대를 뇌물로 수수한 것이라고 판시하고 있으니 이는 판결의 이유불비 내지는 이유모순이라고 함에 있다.

(6) The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 6 is that the defendant was not a bribe in relation to the case where it was discovered that Nonindicted 6, 65,800 won in Song-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do sold the tobacco in foreign currency on June 24, 1969, and that the defendant was not a defendant, and that the defendant was a subordinate employee of Nonindicted 7, and the defendant was paid KRW 25,800 among his subordinate employees, and delivered KRW 25,800 to Nonindicted 8, who is the information belonging to the resale Administration, and contributed to the information activity by giving KRW 30,000 among them. The defendant received KRW 35,000 from Nonindicted 1 in the crime delivery office on September 24, 1968, which was collected as a fine, which was collected as the collection of KRW 29,657 among them, and the remaining KRW 5,343 won was equivalent to Nonindicted 1, but the court below found the bribe by the defendant.

(7) The gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal against Nonindicted 9 ought to be sentenced in light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) was aware of the principal portion of the public official’s offense; and (b) was committed considerably; (c) however, the lower court’s postponement of execution of the sentence is unreasonable.

Article 2. (1) Therefore, we first examine Defendant 1's argument of incomplete hearing, and the court below found Defendant 1's foreign currency purchase performance and delivery performance and delivery performance on the part of the U.S. military court's office based on each of the records and seized records in the records of foreign currency-related sales records prepared in the Seoul Cho Jong-gun's book and the supply performance records prepared in the U.S. Air Force Jung-gun's book. The court below examined Defendant 10 of the above witness, and agreed to the credibility of the record of the document prepared in the Seoul Jeon-chul's book as it is obvious by the reason of the judgment of the court below, and it is clear by the record of the court below that the defendant's consent to the report and the seizure record was insufficient to find a false fact-finding due to negligence in the lower court's trial, and there is no reason to see it third, and there is no reason to find the evidence of evidence as to Defendant 5's violation of the law of early delivery and the offering of bribe to Defendant 1.

(2) As to Defendant 2’s assertion of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts, it is sufficient to find the facts of 1 through 3 criminal facts at the time of original adjudication in combination with Defendant 1 and 7 in full view of the Defendants’ statements at the trial court, and it is sufficient to find the facts of 1 through 3 criminal facts at the time of original adjudication in combination with Defendant 1 and 7, and it is not possible to find any illegality in the process of fact-finding in the court below’s fact-finding. Accordingly,

(3) As to the argument that Defendant 4 did not request a public trial, the court below, as alleged by the defense counsel, found Defendant 4 guilty of the crime committed by Defendant 3 which was not prosecuted by the prosecutor at the time of original trial. However, it is clear by the reasoning of the judgment of the court below that the court below decided the crime of Defendant 7 which was not prosecuted but by the method of specifically explaining Defendant 7's crime. Accordingly, it is without merit to discuss the argument. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to discuss the following legal principles of additional collection, and if it is impossible to confiscate an article related to the crime, it is impossible to collect only the balance after deducting purchase cost or production cost from the objective reasonable price of the article when it is not possible to collect the article in this case, and since it is apparent in light of the legal principles of additional collection that the initial sale price of the article should be collected in accordance with Article 40 of the first time Act, it is not reasonable to see that the court below's argument that the facts of evidence are not legitimate, and it is not reasonable to acknowledge it as to the evidence of the defendant's own opinion and it without merit.

(4) In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of the defendant's crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no other error in the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing of the court below.

Since a bribe is not necessarily required to be received without compensation and it is sufficient to have a quid pro quo relationship related to a public official's official's duty, one gold cooling house that the defendant received is exchanged with the Japanese air cooling house that the defendant was in possession of, or a considerable amount of vehicle in price, and it is obvious in the records that the defendant obtained a position to prevent the illegal outflow of the foreign currency smoke from the above pan water acid construction work and the foreign currency smoke by the hand, and it is apparent in the record that the defendant obtained a bribe by hand by hand, so it is not a mere exchange but a cold cooling house that the defendant acquired is sufficient to be regarded as a bribe.

(5) We examine Defendant 6’s grounds of appeal.

As the court below decided in light of the records, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant, and the defendant has been subject to the fine of non-indicted 6 as stated in the records, but even if so, since the person liable for the payment of the fine is non-indicted 6, the person liable for the payment of the fine is not in the nature to collect it, and the amount of the fine of non-indicted 6's 25,800 won is non-indicted 100,80 won, it cannot be accepted in light of the record that the amount received by the defendant is 100,800 won. Ultimately, the argument is groundless.

(6) As to the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Nonindicted 9’s assertion of unfair sentencing, it can be acknowledged that the lower court’s determination of the sentence against the Defendant was appropriate in view of various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the case records, and there is no other material to deal with it, and it cannot be discussed.

(7) We examine Defendant 3’s assertion of violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of facts.

먼저 피고인에 대한 공소사실중 금 50,000원의 뇌물을 수수하였는가의 점에 관하여 살피건대, 공소사실에 부합하는 듯한 증거로 피고인의 검찰에서의 자백이 있으나 원심법정에서부터 당심법정에 이르기까지 범행사실을 극구 부인할 뿐더러 검찰에서의 자백은 고문에 의한 것이라고 변소하고 있고 이에 당심법정에서 증인 공소외 12의 진술과 공소외 13의 법정진술로 미루어 피고인의 검찰에서의 자백은 그 진술에 반할 신빙성뿐 아니라 외부적 사정에 의하여 임의성 없이 이루어진 것이라고 볼 수 있다 하겠으며 이밖에 이 공소부분에 부합하는 듯한 증거로서는 검사작성의 상피고인 1에 대한 피의자심문조서중의 진술기재와 피고인 1의 원심법정에서의 진술이 있는 바, 그 수수한 액수에 관하여 검찰에서는 금 60,000원이라 하고 법정에서는 금 50,000원이라 진술하여 서로 엇갈리는 점이 있을 뿐 아니라 상피고인 2는 검찰에서「 피고인 1이 찝차 속에서 직접 금 60,000원을 전했다」고 이와 모순된 진술을 하고 있어 피고인 1의 진술에 허구성을 드러내고 있고 또 피고인 1의 진술은 「 공소외 3이 피고인 3의 부인에게 전달하고 나왔다고 했다」는 것이므로 이는 결국 제3자의 진술을 그 내용으로 하는 이른바 전문증거에 그치고 있으므로 이러한 전문증거만으로써는 피고인에 대한 검사의 공소사실을 인정하기에 불충분하여 달리 이를 뒷받침할만한 아무런 증거가 없고, 다음 피고인 3이 향응을 받았다는 공소부분에 관하여 살피건대, 일건기록상 피고인이 상피고인 1, 2, 공소외 1로부터 금 10,000원 상당의 향응을 받은 것은 일건기록상 명백하나 피고인은 상피고인 1, 2 및 공소외 1과는 평소에 안면이 있는 사이인 점, 피고인이 위 범아물산공사의 업무인 외화연초 납품에 관하여 감찰권을 갖고 있는 점, 이에 피고인의 부하직원이 서울역 연초소매소의 공소외 14로부터 외화연초의 시중유출을 적발하고 범아물산공사에 까지는 수사를 확대시키지 않고 단지 공소외 14등에게만 통고처분을 하고 수사를 매듭지은 일시(1968.8.22. 및 23.)와 피고인이 상피고인으로부터 금 10,000원 상당의 향응을 받은 일시(1968.12. 일자불상경)와는 무려 4개월이 경과한 후인 점등이 기록상 엿보이는 바 이러한 제반사정으로 미루어 피고인이 금 10,000원 상당의 향응을 받은 것은 피고인의 직무상 부정한 처사에 대한 사례표시라기 보다는 오히려 장래 있을지 모르는 회사의 업무에 관하여 직무상 지도를 바라는 뜻이었다고 보는 것이 우리의 경험법칙에 합치된다 할 것이며 따라서 이건이(일반 뇌물죄로 논함은 별문제일 것이나) 사후 뇌물수수죄로 보기는 어렵다고 할 것이며 달리 일건기록을 정사하여도 위의 향응이 직무상 부정한 처사에 대한 사례조로 제공한 것이라고 볼만한 아무런 증거가 없다.

Therefore, all the prosecutor's charges against the defendant should be based on the absence of proof, and therefore, the defendant's argument about this issue is reasonable.

Here, among the facts charged against Defendant 1 and 2, we examine ex officio the part concerning the offering of a bribe to Defendant 3 on the part of the facts charged regarding the offering of a bribe to Defendant 1 and 2, and as seen above, there is no evidence to acknowledge this as to the charge of the offering of a bribe to Defendant 3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below as to this part shall not be reversed.

3. Therefore, as seen earlier, since both the appeals filed by Defendants 4, 5, and 6 and the prosecutor’s appeal filed against Nonindicted 9 are clearly groundless, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and each appeal filed by Defendant 3 pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is with merit, and as to Defendants 1 and 2, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the judgment below is reversed and it is so decided as follows.

The criminal facts and evidence relations against the remaining defendants except the defendant 3 among the defendants who have destroyed and damaged them are the same as those at the time of the original adjudication. Thus, this is the same as at the time of the original adjudication. Thus, this is referred to in the Criminal Procedure Act Article 369.

In light of the law, the defendants' 1, 1, 2, and 4 of the judgment of the court below as to the above 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 40, 13, 129, 30, and 15 of the judgment of the court below as to the offering of a bribe to the above 1, 4, 1, 2, 300, 1, 400, 1, 200, 1, 300, 4, 500, 500, 1, 500, 400, 1, 500, 500, 500, 1, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 1, 50,000,000, 50,000,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won.

1. Part 1. The facts charged against Defendant 3 are as follows; Defendant 3 was in the position of the supervisory director of the Incheon Regional Office from January 15, 1968 to January 14, 1969; and was engaged in the duty to monitor the crackdown on violation of the laws at the beginning of the year and illegal dispositions against foreign currency distributors;

On August 7, 1968 and August 8, 1968, Non-Indicted 14 discovered that they were sold through Non-Indicted 15 and Non-Indicted 16, which were collected by Non-Indicted 7, a general retail of the beginning of the Seoul Station, as a result of the detection of the source of the foreign currency and the investigation into its origin. However, it was purchased through Non-Indicted 15 and Non-Indicted 16, which was known that Non-Indicted 2 had been supplied to Non-Indicted 3's office in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the seizure of Non-Indicted 317, Non-Indicted 20, which was located in the Non-Indicted 317, and the non-Indicted 3's office's non-Indicted 1's non-Indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 31's office.

2. Of the facts charged against Defendants 1 and 2, the facts charged are as follows: Defendant 1 and 2, etc. are offered mutually and as of December 12, 1968, the term "training in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Council located in the Jung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City Council" was offered to Defendant 3 as a bribe with the main effect equivalent to KRW 50,000 and KRW 50,000, as in electricity through Nonindicted 3 at the Jung-gu and the upper defendant 3's house. As seen above, it is difficult to prove that there is no proof as to the facts charged, and thus, the defendant 1 and 2 are acquitted by applying the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul