(a) In case where any member of the National Assembly has made a solicitation to arrange to the president of the Korean Racing Association so that the ordering work of the Korean Racing Association may be ordered through a free contract and has paid the money (affirmative);

(b) Whether a contract for supplying goods to the head of the material division or the employee of the Korea National Housing Corporation constitutes an illegal solicitation in cases of giving money 21.8 million won after concluding a contract with the Korea Veterans Welfare Corporation (affirmative)

A. The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has the right to appoint the president of the Korean Racing Association, the right to supervise the affairs of marina society, and the National Assembly has the legislative right, the right to decide on the budget, the right to investigate state affairs, and the right to request the National Assembly to attend the National Assembly and to reply to the state affairs of the member of the State Council. As such, the member of the National Assembly is in a position to have de facto influence on the president of the Korean Racing Association. Therefore, if the defendant made a solicitation to request the president of the Korean Racing Association to make a free contract for the construction works ordered by the Korean Racing Association and paid the money, the crime

B. Illegal solicitation in the crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust refers to solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith, and in determining this, the contents of solicitation and the amount of property given in relation thereto, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests of this crime, should be comprehensively considered. Thus, if the defendant requested that the goods supply contract be concluded with the head of the material division and the employee under a negotiated contract with the Korea Veterans Welfare Corporation and delivered 21.8 million won after the conclusion of the purchase contract, the defendant's above solicitation should be regarded as an illegal solicitation.

(a) Article 132 of the Criminal Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Do2743 decided Mar. 31, 1971 (No. 1990, 301) (Gong140) 79Do1928 decided Nov. 13, 1979 (Gong1980, 12372). Supreme Court Decision 89Do465 decided Dec. 12, 1989 (Gong190, 301)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Byung-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 88No3495 delivered on February 2, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

In the crime of mediation and bribery under Article 132 of the Criminal Act, the phrase "public official taking advantage of his status" is sufficient if there is a legal or factual relation that may affect the affairs handled by other public officials (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do2743, Mar. 31, 1971). Thus, as a special corporation established under the Korean Racing Association Act, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has the authority to supervise the affairs of marina society, such as the appointment right of the head of marina Society, and the authorization of compilation of budget, and the National Assembly has the authority to request the National Assembly to attend the National Assembly and to answer the status of state affairs (see the Constitution amended on Oct. 27, 1980).

The court below recognized the fact that the defendant paid the money to the non-indicted 1, who was a member of the National Assembly, through a negotiated contract for the construction ordered by the Korean Racing Association as at the time of the original adjudication, and recognized the fact that the defendant made a solicitation to request the president of the Korean Racing Association to give the money, and decided as a crime of brokerage and trust is just, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of facts

The grounds of appeal are also examined as follows: (2) and (4).

According to the timely evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant granted a bribe to the director of the Public Procurement Service and the director of the Public Procurement Service and the non-indicted 3 and the executive officers of the Korea Veterans Welfare Corporation, a government-managed enterprise, in relation to each of their duties, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the legal principles

The above ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

In the crime of giving and receiving property in breach of trust, illegal solicitation refers to solicitation that goes against social rules or the principle of good faith, and in determining this, the contents of solicitation and the amount, form, and integrity of the transaction, which is the legal interest protected by the law of this crime, should be comprehensively considered. As determined by the court below, the non-indicted 5 corporation may purchase the supply contract of the business place in the Daejeon Daejeon through a private contract or open competitive bidding, and even if it comes to a negotiated contract, it is possible to enter into a contract with the Korea Electric Industry Cooperatives, and the non-indicted 6 corporation. The chief of the material division and the non-indicted 7 of the material division and the employees of the defendant who are in charge of the above purchase contract, enter into a private contract with the Korea Veterans Welfare Corporation, and if 20,180,000 won were paid to the non-indicted 8 after concluding the purchase contract, the defendant's solicitation should be regarded as an illegal solicitation.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

According to the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below, the defendant embezzled the above amount of money owned by the association as the head of the non-indicted 9 association while in office, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the intention of illegal acquisition, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the timely evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment below, the facts constituting the crime of this case can be recognized, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the assertion of unreasonable sentencing does not constitute a legitimate ground

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)