(a) Requirements for the establishment of crimes under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Administrative Affairs

(b) The collection station where the defendant has repaid a considerable amount of money under the pretext of compensation for damages that he received from the victim;

A. According to the provisions of Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Administrative Affairs (Abolition) of the Act, if money and valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging affairs concerning the case handled by a public official, the crime is constituted.

B. With respect to cases or affairs handled by a public official, the money and valuables received as a solicitation or an intermediary name shall not be returned as they are, and even if the money and valuables received as a result of consumption and compensation have been repaid to the victims, etc., it shall be deducted from the amount to be collected.

Article 2 of the Control of Legal Affairs (Abolition) Act, Article 5 of the Control of Administrative Affairs and Handling of Legal Affairs Act (Abolition)

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 66No589 delivered on April 28, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Legal Affairs, money and valuables are received under the pretext of soliciting or arranging a case or affairs handled by a public official, and the establishment of a crime is not determined according to the result of solicitation or mediation, not the establishment of a crime, and the defendant could not have any influence on the establishment of the crime of this case and used travel expenses, lodging expenses, etc. for solicitation or mediation (the first instance court did not make any assertion). Even if the defendant did not return money and valuables received from Nonindicted 1, 2, etc. in the decision that he was the victim, but paid money and valuables received from the victim, etc. by consuming the money and valuables received, and he did not deduct them from the amount to be collected, so the court below did not err by not deducting the amount paid by the victim for damage compensation from the amount to be collected by the victim, and the reason of unfair decision of mistake of facts cannot be seen as the grounds of appeal in this case under the provisions of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court