The number of crimes where a public official alters an official document after receiving a bribe in connection with his/her duties;

Since the defendant, who is a public official, received a bribe in connection with his duties and then altered official documents, one act under Article 40 of the Criminal Act is in the so-called commercial concurrent relation corresponding to several crimes, and therefore, the judgment of the court below that regarded it as a substantive concurrent crimes cannot be exempted from reversal because there is a violation of the law that affected the judgment.

Article 40 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Busan District Court (80 High Court Decision 531)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The ninety days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

50,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the sentence of the court below, which sentenced one year to the defendant, is too unreasonable. Accordingly, according to the records, the defendant is the first offender and has paid an amount equivalent to the amount of the bribe received after the case because the case is extremely minor, as well as the defendant has been living under detention near the five months since this case, and if considering all circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, the sentence of the court below, which sentenced the defendant, is too heavy, is considered to be too heavy.

In addition, according to the judgment of the court below ex officio, there are three substantive concurrent crimes such as the increased acceptance of bribe in this case, alteration of official documents, and the event at the same time, and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is applied. However, the defendant's so-called "public document" by record has been modified after acceptance of bribe in relation to his duties, so even though a single act prescribed in Article 40 of the Criminal Act is in a so-called commercial concurrent relationship that constitutes several crimes, the original judgment is regarded as a real concurrent crimes as mentioned above, and thus, it is against the above law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it shall not be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts recognized as a party member and evidence thereof are cited as they are because they are the same as those of the court below, which added the defendant's statement in the trial court to the evidence.

In contrast to the law, the fact of acceptance of aggravated bribery under the judgment of the court below is that each public document is modified under Articles 131(1) and 129(1) of the Criminal Act; each of the above crimes falls under Articles 229 and 225 of the same Act; since each of the above crimes constitutes several crimes under Articles 40 and 50 of the same Act, the above crimes shall be punished under Articles 40 and 50 of the same Act; the defendant shall be punished under Article 57 of the same Act within the prescribed term of punishment; and the defendant shall be punished under Article 90 of the same Act within the prescribed term of punishment; 90 days from the number of detention days before the sentence of the court below shall be included in the above punishment; the execution of the above punishment shall be postponed for two years from the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive; and the amount of 50,000 won received by the defendant shall be consumed or consumed, and it shall not be confiscated under Article 135 of the same Act.

Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)