If a bank deposits a check received as a bribe, the deposit constitutes a disposal act of the bribe, and even if the receiver finds a reasonable amount of the check and return it to the receiver, it cannot be viewed as a return of the bribe itself. In this case, the value of the bribe should be collected from the receiver.

If a bank deposits a check received as a bribe, the deposit constitutes a disposal act of the bribe, and even if the consignee finds money equivalent to its face value and return it to the receiver, it cannot be viewed as a return of the bribe itself. In such a case, the equivalent amount should be collected from the consignee.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act, Article 48 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Incheon support of the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 69No644 delivered on December 11, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defense counsel

According to the copy of the small-scale waterworks contract in which the author points out, the construction contract date was written on March 29, 1968. However, even though the court below acknowledged that the defendant's act of receiving the money 4 million won, which was provided by the President of the Geum River Industrial Co., Ltd. as the contractor on March 22, 1968 as the object of the successful tender, was not accepted as the object of the successful tender, but it did not recognize that the above money was received as the object of the successful tender, and as long as it is confirmed that the above money was delivered to another construction project in the future, the successful tender is awarded, and the process and payment of the above construction are delivered to the purport that it was delivered with convenience, there is no change in the defendant's act of receiving the money in relation to his duties, and there is no error of law that the court below acknowledged the facts without any evidence even after examining the records.

2. health care unit;

In this case where the defendant received a bribe, he did not sell it to another person, such as the time of the original judgment, but only lent the name of his wife, such as the theory of lawsuit, and deposited the check in the bank in its name, it is a kind of consumption and the ownership of the check was attributed to the bank at the same time as the check was deposited. Therefore, the deposit does not change the act of disposal, and even if the defendant returned the check to the receiver by finding a considerable amount of money after the check was returned, the check itself is not returned.

In such a case, the bribe cannot be confiscated, and the value of the bribe shall not be collected from the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that stated this opinion is just, and it is not possible to accept the argument of the legal principles that is based on the opposite opinion since the decision of the court below No. 4292-Ma129 delivered on May 22, 1959 by the party members pointed out the arguments cannot be inconsistent with this case.

Therefore, the appeal in this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and one hundred days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng