(a) Whether a bribe is denied if money or goods are not received or received in an open place for private interest;

(b) The scope of duties in relation to the crime of bribery;

(c) A sexual nature of the crime of bribery where a bribe received is returned because of the excessive amount;

(d) Whether the false report resulting from a disguised or fictitious transaction falls under the category of “fraud or other unlawful means” in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(e) The time when the corporate tax evasion offense was committed; and

A. In the case of bribery, the place of receiving money and valuables was an open construction site, and the public official who received money and valuables consumed such money and valuables as the awareness of the human body at the construction site or public relations expenses for the construction site, and it is not denied the degree of bribery even if he did not take his interest.

B. In the crime of bribery, the duty includes not only public official’s legal control but also the act which is actually handled in relation to his duties and the act which may assist or affect the decision-making authority.

C. Once accepting a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, even if the amount was too much so that it was returned later, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery.

(d) Any act of evading value-added tax, corporate tax, defense tax, etc. by means of filing a false statement of account, filing a false statement of account, appropriation of processing expenses, and appropriation, omission, etc. of construction income, without filing a report of tax base or underreporting of tax base, shall be deemed fraudulent or other

E. According to the provisions of Articles 26, 31, and 32 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200, Dec. 28, 1979), it is apparent that the corporate tax is not “tax imposed and collected by filing a return”. Thus, the time when the return and the payment deadline expires pursuant to the provisions of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 3353, Dec. 31, 1980).

(c)Article 129 of the Criminal Code, article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, article 26, 31, and 32 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200, Dec. 28, 1979);

A. Supreme Court Decision 4293Do942 delivered on January 31, 1961, 666. July 19, 1966, Decision 82Do1656 delivered on September 28, 1982. Supreme Court Decision 83Do113 delivered on March 22, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 83Do149 delivered on April 10, 1984. Supreme Court Decision 83Do214 delivered on February 28, 1984

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Shin Jae-chul et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1119 delivered on July 7, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendants 1, 2 and the defendants are also examined.

According to the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, there was no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, even though the facts charged against the defendants were recognized and the records were examined, and even if a public official who received money and valuables was at an open construction site and consumed them as public relations expenses for the construction site, it does not deny the degree of bribery (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Do942 delivered on January 31, 1961; 66Do718 delivered on July 19, 196; 82Do1656 delivered on September 28, 1982). Thus, in the crime of bribery, since not only a public official's occupational act in charge, but also a public official who received money and valuables used them as public relations expenses for the construction site and did not take his own interest, it does not constitute a crime of bribery, the court below's decision of acceptance of money and valuables as well as a public official's occupational act in charge of the public official's official's duties but also an act of bribery.

Furthermore, according to the facts found by the court of first instance maintained by the court below, since Defendant 2's act of evading value-added tax, corporate tax, defense tax, etc. by means of failure to file a tax base or filing a false tax invoice through a disguised processing transaction other than underreporting of the tax base, appropriation of processing expenses, omission of construction income, etc., the court below is just in finding that such so-called "tax was evaded by deceit or other unlawful means" of this defendant's so-called "in addition, subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 3353 of Dec. 31, 1980) provides that in cases of taxes imposed and collected by a taxpayer's declaration, the time when the tax base or payment period expires after the taxpayer's declaration was made, and in other taxes, the time when the tax base and payment period expires without the taxpayer's return and the tax payment period expires after the taxpayer's return were not accepted by the government's 28 years old and 198 years old.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)