In case where each of the so-called accepted bribery constitutes one crime on several occasions, whether Article 2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies in case where the aggregate amount of the accepted bribery exceeds five hundred thousand won.

If the aggregate amount of the accepted bribery is five hundred thousand won or more, it shall be subject to Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act and Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Do2497 delivered on February 26, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 10675Da10675, Supreme Court Decision 22 ①-22, summary of the decision, Article 2(2)1404 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Court Gazette 485No765)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Seoul District Criminal Court (76 High Court Decision 259)

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be 110 days, including each penalty.

However, from the date of the conclusion of this judgment, Defendant 1 shall be suspended for four years, and Defendant 2 shall be suspended from the execution of each of the above punishment for three years.

3,080,000 won from Defendant 1 and 1,550,000 won from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1 and his defense counsel is as follows: first, there is no error of misconception of facts in the judgment; second, the court below found the defendant guilty; second, the court below erred in applying the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes because each crime committed by the defendant is an independent crime; third, the judgment of the court below is unfair because the amount of punishment imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable; second, the court below's summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 2 and the defendant's defense counsel is too unreasonable; second, the court below found the defendant guilty; second, in applying the law to the facts in the judgment of the court below, there was an error of law of misconception of facts that affect the judgment; second, the court below erred in the judgment of the court below because it did not affect the decision of the court below because it applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the defendant 1974 as well as the Presidential Decree order and emergency measures to protect public safety, which were enforced on May 13, 1975.

Therefore, in light of the records, the first review of the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts, and the comprehensive review of the evidence duly adopted by the court below in light of the records, each of the facts stated by the court below can be sufficiently recognized, so the grounds for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

Then, the following is examined as to the grounds for appeal of violation of law. Each so-called "the Defendants' ruling" constitutes each comprehensive one crime as decided by the court below. As such, it is just in applying Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes with respect to a case in which the sum of the comprehensive one crime is 50,000 won or more, and it is also reasonable in applying Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In addition, the grounds for appeal as to violation of law can be mitigated as a matter of course by interpretation

Finally, in light of various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the sentence against the Defendants is considered to be too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ appeal is reasonable at this point. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below should not be reversed.

Therefore, according to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed, and it is decided again by a member.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The summary of the defendants' facts constituting the crime and the evidence related to them, which are admitted as a party member, are referred to in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except that the 2.30 years and 2.30 years and 2.30 years and 2.28 years of the facts constituting the defendant 2 of the judgment of the court below as stated in each corresponding column of the court below, thereby citing all of them in accordance with Article

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

The defendants 1-(a) and 2-(a) of the so-called "defendants 1-(b)" as stated in the judgment of the defendants are as follows: each point of Article 2 (1)-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 129 (1)-3 of the Criminal Act; and Article 129 (3)-4 of the Criminal Act provides several types of offenses falling under Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act; and Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Act provides that the defendants 1-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a definite period of 5 years, taking into account the following facts: since the defendants 1-2 of the judgment below's punishment is more severe and more severe and more severe than 3-year imprisonment for each of the above defendants 2-year prison life as stated above, and the remaining defendants 1-year imprisonment and 5-year imprisonment were more severe.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)