Collection for the crime of bribery

In the case of the bribery, if it is impossible to confiscate the bribe received by the consignee because of consumption of the bribe, the amount of the bribe thereafter shall be returned to the receiver, even if the amount of the bribe was returned to the receiver.

(2) The collection will be made.

Article 133 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 66No184 delivered on November 10, 1966

All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

With respect to the detention days of the defendant leapperson, 55 days out of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3 of this case and his defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 3;

In the case where the original judgment erred by mistake of facts or the reason that the sentencing is unfair is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the above counsel are examined.

In the crime of accepting a bribe, in case where it is impossible for the consignee to confiscate the bribe because of consumption of the bribe received once again, the price of the bribe shall be collected from the consignee even if the amount was returned to the receiver, and the judgment of the original court cited the argument shall not be related to this case since the consignee has returned the bribe itself to the receiver. Thus, the judgment of the original court that held to the same effect is justified and it is not reasonable.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

The issue is that the above defendant received or delivered the subject matter under the instruction of the chief of the commercial recognized Eup/Myeon police station, the chief of the investigation department, and the head of the criminal affairs department, and it is not reasonable to do so on the premise that the original judgment was not accepted.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

The reason why there was a mistake of facts in the original judgment is that there was no legitimate ground for appeal in respect of this case where imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years was not sentenced.

Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed without merit, and 55 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro