A. Whether the competent authority of the ordinary military law council is ex officio (negative)

(b) Acceptance of balance after an illegal act and the nature of the crime of ex post facto accepted bribery;

A. In the absence of any application for violation of jurisdiction, even if the case falls under the jurisdiction of another ordinary military court council, the court of first instance did not need to investigate ex officio the existence or absence of jurisdiction, and the court of first instance cannot pronounce the violation of jurisdiction.

B. An officer in charge of tendering for a construction project violates the so-called duties that the officer notified the bidder of the estimated bid price of the construction project in advance in advance, and constitutes an illegal act under Article 141(2) of the Criminal Act. Thus, even if 20 days have passed after the bidding was completed, it constitutes an ex post facto bribery since it constitutes receipt of money and valuables related to a fraudulent act on duty and constitutes an ex post facto bribery.

(a) Article 365 of the Military Law Meeting Act;

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Shin Jae-chul

High Military Court Decision 81 High Military Punishment, 719 delivered on June 29, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the provisions of Article 365 of the Military Court-Martial Law Meeting Act, if there is no request from the defendant, it is merely impossible to make a declaration of violation of jurisdiction as to a case under the jurisdiction of another general law meeting of the military (Paragraph 1), and the request for violation of jurisdiction should be made before the defendant makes a statement about the case (Paragraph 2). According to the records, the defendants did not make a request for violation of jurisdiction at the general law meeting of the military court headquarters of this case. Thus, even though the defendant's case against the defendants was a case under the jurisdiction of the general law meeting of the second common law meeting of the headquarters of this case, as in the lawsuit, even though the defendant's case against the defendants was a case under the jurisdiction of the general law meeting of the first instance court, the common law meeting of the first instance did not have a need to investigate ex officio the existence or absence of jurisdiction, and from the contrary, it is not erroneous in the incomplete deliberation and the judgment of the court below which maintained it. Further, the arguments are groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Examining the evidence in the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, it is hard to sufficiently prove the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant 1, and there is no argument that there is an

In addition, the defendant's act in violation of the so-called "the first instance court's decision that notified the bidder of the tender price of the construction project to the public in charge of bid affairs and constitutes an illegal act under Article 131 (2) of the Criminal Act, and even if the amount of 500,000 won at the time of the defendant's original decision was received under the pretext of advance payment after the lapse of 20 days after the completion of the tender like the theory of lawsuit, the fact-finding of the court below that it is the receipt of money and valuables related to the above official misconduct is not acceptable. Thus, the court below's decision that held the defendant's so-called "the defendant's act in violation of the law" under Article

With respect to the third point:

According to the evidence of the first instance court as cited by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts of the crime against Defendant 2 are committed, and there is no error in finding the facts due to the evidence preparation in violation of the rules of evidence, and at the time of original sale, the so-called of the defendant cannot be viewed as a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of bribery, even if the measures taken by the defendant for the purpose of the crime of bribery

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)