A. Whether Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which punishs the aggravated crimes of bribery, violates Articles 10, 11(1), and 12 of the Constitution (negative)

(b) Bribery and business relationship in the case of bribery;

C. The nature of the crime of bribery in cases where the bribe was received with the intention of acquiring it, but the amount was too high and kept as the intention to return it later (affirmative)

(d) The amount of the accepted bribery, where part of the bribe is delivered to another person;

(e) The case holding that since the amount received by a member of the National Assembly is a bribe and is not a political fund, there is no room for separate violation of the Political Fund Act;

A. The legislative purpose of Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to contribute to the maintenance of sound social order and the development of the national economy by punishing aggravated bribery charges as stipulated in Article 1 of the same Act. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery has a significant adverse effect on the social order and the national economy of the Republic of Korea, the crime of bribery need to be punished more strictly than other crimes in order to eradicate the act of bribery by a public official in accordance with the legislative policy, and the statutory punishment is clearly excessive beyond the scope of appropriate legislative policy, and thus, it should be deemed that the violation of the principle of no punishment without the law or the protection of human dignity and value under the Constitution or the violation of the principle of no punishment without the law. Since the large amount of the bribery amount, it cannot be deemed that the above provision is a legislation without reasonable grounds, it does not violate Articles 10, 11(1) and 12 of the Constitution.

B. Bribery is the legal interest of which is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society, and thus, the legal interest of which is the non-purchase of the act of official duties is the direct protection of the law. Thus, the "duty" in the crime of bribery does not include not include not only the duty prescribed in the law, but also the duty related to it, but also all the duties that public officials, such as duties, etc., who are in the general authority and authority of the law, shall take charge of official duties according to the relevant position.

C. Once accepting a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery even if it was kept as an intention to return it later because the amount was too large.

D. It should be deemed that the recipient of a bribe has received the total amount of the bribe even if he/she delivered it to another person for his/her own convenience.

(e) The case holding that since the money received by the defendant who is a member of the National Assembly is a bribe and is not a political fund of the Political Fund Act, it may not be established separately from the crime of bribery;

(a) Articles 10, 11(1), and 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and Article 2(1)1(b) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. (d) Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 11(1) and Article 13 subparag. 2 of the Political Funds Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1760) (Gong1760). Supreme Court Decision 80Do541 delivered on April 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 12834)

A and six others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorneys B and 17 others

Seoul High Court Decision 91No2997 delivered on December 6, 1991

Defendant A’s respective appeals of C, D, E, F, and G, and Prosecutor’s appeals against Defendant H are dismissed.

As to the defendant A, 75 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original trial for the same defendant.

1. Regarding Defendant A’s legal counsel’s ground of appeal No. 3, as to the argument that Article 2(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes violates Article 10, Article 11(1), and Article 12 of the Constitution, the legislative purpose of the above provision is to contribute to the maintenance of sound social order and the development of the national economy by imposing aggravated punishment of bribery as provided in Article 1 of the same Act. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery affects the social order and the national economy of the Republic of Korea, it is necessary to punish the crime of bribery more severe than other crimes in order to eradicate the act of bribery of public officials in accordance with the legislative policy, and the statutory punishment clearly exceeds the reasonable legislative policy, so it is difficult to view that the violation of the Constitution’s dignity and value guarantee, or the principle of no punishment without law, has reached the degree of violation of the legal interest of the crime of bribery and its illegality. Thus, the above provision cannot be justified and dismissed.

2. Regarding Defendant C’s legal counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1, the 7th trial record of the court below is examined. Defendant C responded to the questions concerning the recognized question and health conditions of the presiding judge, and it can be known that Defendant C used the defense counsel’s pleading and made a statement of not guilty as the last statement, and there is no other evidence to deem that the same Defendant had no ability to discern things or make a decision at the time of the trial of the court below. Thus, the argument is without merit.

3. As to the first ground of appeal of Defendant D’s defense counsel, in a case where a dispute is raised as to the admissibility of the statement of the accused's suspect examination prepared by the prosecutor, the court shall judge it free in accordance with a specific case by taking into account the type and contents of the protocol, the academic background, career, intelligence level, etc. of the person who made the statement, and with the same purport, the court below acknowledged that Defendant D's testimony was Voluntary in the prosecutor's statement of the same defendant, in light of all the circumstances such as the period and place examined in this case, the form and contents of the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the prosecutor against Dong, the form and contents of the protocol of suspect examination prepared by the prosecutor against Dong, and its age, academic background, career, social status, intelligence, etc.,

4. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal Nos. 2, his defense counsel’s ground of appeal Nos. 1, Defendant C’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, Defendant D’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 2, Defendant E’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal, and Defendant F

The court below stated that the crime of false bribery is the legal interest of which is the process of performing official duties and the trust of the society, and therefore, the crime of bribery is not the existence of a duty violation, the time of receiving money and valuables, and the time of receiving money and the time of performing official duties. Therefore, the " duty" referred to in the crime of bribery includes not only the duty prescribed in the law but also the duties related thereto, the duties related thereto, the duties related thereto, and other duties that are not actually performed according to the division of duties in the future or in the future. After considering the relations between the Defendants and the co-defendants of the court below recognized by the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance with the evidence, the amount received, the timing of receiving money, and the details of the explicit implied solicitation against the Defendants of the I, there is no illegality such as the theory that the Defendants accepted the bribe in relation to their duties.

In addition, even if Defendant A accepted a bribe with the intention of acquiring it once, but the amount was too large and stored as the intention to return it later, the establishment of the crime of bribery does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery, and it should be deemed that Defendant received the above amount of the bribe even if he delivered part of it to others according to his own convenience after receiving it. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct.

In addition, considering the evidence of the first instance court as duly admitted by the court below, although the above I sold the land of this case to the non-indicted 26 housing association as the site of its association, it was contracted for the new construction of housing. However, since the above land was a natural green area under the Urban Planning Act and the construction of new housing could not be carried out at all, it was requested the Minister of Construction and Transportation to designate the above land as a planned area for housing site development under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. As the Director of the Land Bureau at the time of construction, the above I promptly handled the designated work and delivered a cashier's checks to the owners of the above land in a manner favorable to the owners of the above I, and the above I did not have any influence on the designation of the housing site development area as a planned area for housing development, and there was no change of the above I's authority to do so for the above I and the National Housing Site Development Promotion Committee to do so. Therefore, the above I's authority to do so cannot be acknowledged as a result of the above I's new construction of the housing site development project.

5. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal No. 1, his defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 2, Defendant C’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 4, Defendant D’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 3 and No. 4

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since each amount received by Defendant A, C, and D is merely a bribe and is not a political fund prescribed by the Political Fund Act, it is not possible to establish a violation of the Political Fund Act separately from the bribery.

Nevertheless, it is wrong for the court below to affirm the establishment of a crime of violation of the Political Fund Act, which was not instituted in addition to the crime of bribery, with respect to each of the above defendants, and to the purport that the two crimes are crimes of ordinary concurrent crimes. However, since the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which was applied to the crime of bribery under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, while Defendant A and C had applied the same crime to Defendant D, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a ground for reversal of the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, we cannot accept all the arguments of the court below that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to political funds Act, the Attorney-at-law Act, the Attorney-at-law Act, or the right to

6. As to Defendant G’s ground of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the crime of this case against Defendant G and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, which was based on the crime of taking property in breach of trust, is justified, and since there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit, all arguments are without merit

7. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal No. 3 and his defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 4

Even if the punishment is imposed upon the acceptance of the punishment, the punishment should not be mitigated, and in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years has been imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is extremely unfair cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

8. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In comparison with the evidence and circumstances of the theory of the lawsuit and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below's acquittal against Defendant H, the court below's rejection of the charge of this case as it did not reach the conviction level against Defendant H, and there is no illegality such as the theory of the lawsuit. There is no reason to argue.

9. All appeals are dismissed, and for Defendant A, 75 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original trial, and this decision shall be delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)