A. Criteria for determining whether an employee is above an exaggerated level under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (=class)

(b) The case holding that even if a class 3 employee in general service, who is called the director at the headquarters A of the Korea Telecommunication Corporation, does not have a practical position in the position of director, he can be the subject of the acceptance of bribe;

C. Whether an employee, who is not an employee higher than the chief of a government-managed enterprise, can become a joint principal offender of the crime of acceptance of bribe with another employee higher than the chief of a division officer (affirmative)

A. The employees of the section chief or the section chief or higher under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refer to the section chief or the section chief or the staff of the same or higher level on the basis of the class, and it is not a question whether the employee has a position of section chief

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant, who is a class 3 employee of the above general service, was employed as a general service staff of the headquarters of the above Corporation or the personnel department of the management bureau. However, the enforcement rules of the above rules on the organization of the Corporation stipulate that the class 3 employee of class 3 in general service, whose position is not assigned under the organizational chart, shall be referred to as the director of the division. In addition, if the present agency affiliated with the above business headquarters provides that the employee of class 3 in general service, such as the Defendant, shall be appointed as the director of the division, the Defendant shall be deemed to be the class of division division and the same class even if the Defendant does not have the position of division in reality, and thus can be deemed to be the subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe

C. A government-managed enterprise may become joint principal offenders of the crime of acceptance of bribe with employees who are not at least the director-general rank of the government-managed enterprise and at least the director-general rank.

(a)Article 129 of the Criminal Code, Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 18 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions, Article 14(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

(b) Supreme Court Decision 80Do2423 delivered on September 22, 1981 (Gong1981, 14392)

B

Defendant

Attorney C

Seoul High Court Decision 91No3370 delivered on November 15, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

In applying Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the executive officers of government-managed enterprises shall be appointed as public officials, but the scope of such government-managed enterprises and executive officers shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. The Korea Telecommunication Corporation has been designated as government-managed enterprises under Article 2 subparagraph 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act. Meanwhile, Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act has the executive officers of the above corporation and the director representative (in case of government-managed enterprises without the director representative system, the same shall apply under Article 18 of the Framework Act on the Management of Government-Invested Institutions and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). The employees of the director representative or the director or higher under the above Enforcement Decree refer to the employees of the same division, the head of the department or the director representative or higher under the above Enforcement Decree on the basis of the class, and it is reasonable to see that there is no question as to whether

According to the records, since the above headquarters A has a minimum unit of organization and there is no excessive employee, the defendant, who is a class 3 employee of the above headquarters of the above headquarters at the time of the crime of this case, has worked as a general employee in the personnel department of the headquarters A of the above headquarters or the management department of the above headquarters at the time of the crime of this case, but the enforcement rules of the above regulations on the organization of the public corporation stipulate that the director of the division shall be appointed the class 3 employee of the above general office. In addition, the above operation organization of the headquarters provides that the defendant shall be appointed as the director of the division. Thus, even if the defendant does not have the position of director in reality, he shall be deemed to be the class of the division division and the same class, so the defendant may be the subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act. The judgment below is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe. In addition, the judgment of the court below that the defendant can be a joint principal offender with other employees.

Furthermore, according to the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court maintained by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant received money in collusion with the co-defendants of the lower court, who are the superior of the Defendant in relation to the personnel affairs in charge, can be recognized, and therefore, the lower court’s judgment that held the Defendant as the crime of acceptance of bribe is justifiable. All arguments are without merit.

For this reason, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho