A. The meaning of duties in relation to the crime of bribery;

(b) Return of a bribe and the nature of the bribery;

A. In relation to the crime of bribery, Article 129 of the Criminal Act includes not only the duties under the control of law, but also the duties that a public official may assist or influence the decision-making authority as well as the actions dealt with in relation to his duties.

B. If a bribe is received as a part of the intent of acquisition, then the bribe is returned later, there is no complaint for the establishment of the crime of bribery.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1431 delivered on November 23, 1982, 83Do113 delivered on March 22, 1983

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Park Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)

Seoul High Court Decision 87No1163 delivered on June 16, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1:

In the crime of bribery under Article 129 of the Criminal Act, the duties of a public official shall be deemed to include not only the duties under the control of the law, but also the acts of assisting or influencing the decision-making authority, and if the bribe is accepted as a result of acquiring intent, it shall be deemed that there is no complaint for the establishment of the crime of bribery even if it was returned later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do113, Mar. 22, 1983; 82Do1431, Nov. 23, 1982).

Comprehensively taking account of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the evidence of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant is in office as the chief of the court of first instance in Gangwon-do (in case of 1st City, the chief of the mine division in charge of mine, airspace, transportation, etc.) and designated the non-indicted taxi corporation operated by the co-defendant 1 as a principal company in 86 years, and Defendant 2, an operator of the above company, is unable to obtain a private taxi license because the number of years of driving experience is insufficient and Defendant 3 cannot obtain a private taxi license because he is not a non-accident driver, but he is asked to receive a private taxi license from the above co-defendant 1 of the court below, a co-defendant of the above company, to receive a private taxi license from the above co-defendant 1 of the court below, and 1.5 million won of the amount provided from the above Co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance (the date of return is clearly recorded) and returned to the defendant 2 of the court below's judgment below's decision.

The defendant asserts that the defendant goes through an interim decision in deciding a person to obtain a private taxi license in the course of performing his duties and that the final decision-making authority has received the ordinary money without connection with his duties as the deputy head who is a superior or the mayor. However, as seen above, the duty includes a duty act that may assist the decision-making authority or affect his duties, and the precedents of party members cited in the theory of lawsuit are different from the case of this case, and therefore, they cannot accept the case. All arguments are without merit.

2. As to Defendant 2 and 3:

In light of the records, the evidence duly adopted by the court below is sufficient to recognize each criminal facts of the judgment against the defendants, and there is no error of fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)