Use of the status of public official as requisite for establishing the crime of good offices bribery.

In the crime of mediation and acceptance of bribery in Article 132 of the Criminal Code, the use of the status by the public official should be at least by the public official who handles the relevant duties and the public official who is in a position to legally, factual, or regardless of and to influence directly or indirectly related to the duties.

Article 132 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Do1303 Decided December 17, 1968 66Do403 Decided February 13, 1973

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jae-chul

High Military Court Decision 82 High Military Punishment, 435-1, 2, 3 and 4 decided February 18, 1983

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the High Military Court of Armed Forces.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the records of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below, in collusion with the non-indicted 1, 2 (a public prosecution was instituted and each conviction was finalized as a result of the prosecution was instituted as the defendant as the defendant's defendant, the non-indicted 3, 4, etc., and requested the non-indicted 5 (a public prosecution was instituted as the defendant and the conviction was finally affirmed as the defendant's defendant) to arrange the deficiency in inventory as the warehouse of the third public prosecution No. 810 branch office from the non-indicted 3, 4, etc. (a public prosecution was instituted as the defendant and the conviction was finally affirmed as the defendant) to receive money from them by receiving the request for the correction of the deficiency in inventory as a false import

Article 132 of the Criminal Act provides that a public official’s acceptance, demand, or promise of a bribe in connection with the referral of matters belonging to the duties of another public official by taking advantage of his position shall not be deemed to constitute this crime regardless of the type and position of the public official. At least, it is clear that the public official in charge of the pertinent duties has a direct or indirect relation with the public official in his duties, and that the public official in charge of the pertinent duties should use his status as a public official (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do1303, Dec. 17, 1968). Thus, the status of the defendant at the time of the instant case can be determined by misapprehending the legal principles as to the fact that the public official was in charge of the 3rd Military Branch, 68th New Security, 38th New Security, and the Defendant and the public official conspired to do so by taking advantage of his position that the public official had been in charge of the 3rd Military Branch, 3rd Military Branch, 3rd Military Branch, etc., and that the court below did not have any relation or any legal basis.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below without the necessity of judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is not exempt from reversal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the case to be reversed and remanded to the High Military Court.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)