The case where the entertainment of shares is recognized as the acceptance of a bribe that deviates from the scope of a private case;

If a public official receives entertainment of a share of which he/she deserts the scope of a private religious ceremony in relation to his/her duties, the acceptance of bribe is recognized.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66No581 delivered on August 10, 1967, Daegu District Court Decision 66No581 delivered on April 10, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The first ground for appeal by the defense counsel is examined.

If all the evidence cited by the judgment of the first instance cited by the original judgment is comprehensively examined in light of the records, the facts established in the original judgment can be recognized. There was no reason to find that the original judgment recognized facts without evidence, or there was an error in the rules of evidence, and then, there was no reason to view that the entertainment of shares in the facts admitted by the original judgment deviates from the scope of private school precedents, and thus it is related to the duties of the defendant.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

Since the original judgment is clear that the number of entertainment of shares and money used in the debate site were treated as an inclusive crime, there is no argument.

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

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