The legal doctrine of "cases or affairs handled by public officials" in Article 2 of the Control of Administrative Affairs Act.

The meaning of "cases or affairs handled by public officials" in Article 2 of the Regulation of Administrative Affairs Act does not require that the public officials handle the affairs at the time of receiving money, and it is an abstract case where public officials are authorized to handle them.

Article 2 of the Control of Legal Affairs (Abolition)

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Area, Seoul High Court Decision 67No241 delivered on November 21, 1967, including Seoul High Court Decision 67No241 delivered on November 21, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

The facts charged of this case which the court below found guilty by the defendant in collusion with Co-Defendant 2 of the court below's judgment that he would receive a request from the non-indicted 1 of this case to receive the real estate owned by the country of sericultural Dong in Yeongdeungpo-gu from the non-indicted 1 of this case at around August 1965, and that he would receive a negotiation with the public official's official's opinion, and he would receive a 400,000 won from August 20 of 1965 and 9.9 times of the same year. Thus, it is obvious that this goes against Article 2 of the Act on the Control of Administrative Affairs, so it is obvious that it does not go against Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Administrative Affairs and Affairs, and it is obvious that the court below has the authority to dispose of the real estate owned by the country at the time of receiving money and other valuables, and therefore the court below is justified in applying Article 2 of the so-called Act as to the defendant.

We examine the second and third grounds for appeal.

In the case of this case where ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant, the grounds for misunderstanding of facts are not allowed as the grounds for appeal, so there was no awareness about the defendant's intention, or there is no reason to hold that the defendant and the above luminous exchange was merely a personnel recommendation to the luminous exchange of the co-defendants of the court below, or that there is no reason to hold that the above luminous exchange of the defendant and the above luminous exchange was not a public offering. In light of the records, even if the first instance court maintained by the court below, it cannot be found that there was an error against the rules of evidence in the protocol which adopted the same witness's statement in the court of first instance as the prosecutor's witness statement in the court of first instance, and it cannot be said that there was no error of law that the defendant

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

Supreme Court Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-won Mab-Ba