(a) The principal agent of the accepted bribery;

(b) This case where prosecutory affairs are not the principal offender of the crime above;

(a)in order to be the subject of the crime of referral and acceptance of bribery, at least a public official who deals with the duties in question and who is in a position to prevent, in fact or in fact, and to exercise any influence, from being legally or indirectly related to the duties in question;

(b) This case where prosecutory affairs are not the principal offender of the crime above;

Article 132 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do403 Delivered on February 13, 1973

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Jae-in (Defendant 1)

Seoul High Court Decision 80No673 delivered on December 24, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the elements for establishing the crime of referral of bribery as stipulated in Article 132 of the Criminal Act, the term "public official taking advantage of his status" means the public official who takes charge of the pertinent duties, regardless of the type and position of the public official, cannot be deemed to be the subject of this crime even if there is no relationship with the other public official who takes charge of the pertinent duties. It is reasonable to interpret that at least a public official who takes charge of the pertinent duties can be the subject of this crime if he is a public official who has a legal or factual relation with a public official who takes charge of the pertinent duties and who is in a position to exercise influence and influence (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do40

2. However, around September 15, 1976, at the time when the above defendant served as the chief of the prosecutor's office in the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office (the Prosecutor's Office in charge), the facts charged against the defendant 1 is that the defendant 2 received a bribe in relation to the referral of matters belonging to the prosecutor's duties by taking advantage of his position and receiving a bribe from the same person, by providing the defendant 1 with a gold 2.5 million won and a bribe in relation to the referral of matters belonging to the prosecutor's duties, which belong to the public official's duties.

3. Regarding this, the judgment of the court below did not have any evidence to acknowledge the facts charged that the above money was received as the title of the case office, but in particular, from March 11, 1976 to September 30 of the same year, Defendant 1 served as the principal prosecutor's office of the above net branch office from March 11, 1976, and from August 27, 1976 to five cases of violation of the Customs Act against Non-Party 1, etc., were detained between the two parties and the twenty nine months, and the prosecutor's office, who was the presence of the defendant in charge of the investigation, changed the above amount from September 14 to the chief prosecutor's office of the defendant in charge of the investigation, and the fact that the defendant 1 was prosecuted on the 18th month, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecutor's discovery of facts and the facts charged against Non-Party 5's violation of the Customs Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there were no legal evidence as to the above facts charged and the defendant 1's position.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)