(a) Degree of the corroborating evidence against the confession;

(b) The case holding that although the other party to the offer of a bribe denies the fact that the other party to the offer of a bribe accepted the bribe, it can be a supporting evidence for the confession of the person who offered the offer of a bribe if he/she accepts the bribe;

C. The meaning of duty in the crime of bribery

D. The meaning of the profit which is the content of the bribe in the crime of bribery

(e) Where a police officer made an investment of KRW 50 million in slot machine business and promised to receive a dividend of KRW 3 million each month, the method of calculating the amount of a bribe of the crime of acceptance of bribe where such a police officer received it;

(a) Reinforcement evidence for confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is true, not a processed one, as well as indirect or circumstantial evidence.

B. The case holding that if the fact that a public official who is the other party to the offering of a bribe denies the receipt of a bribe, but the fact that the person was only involved in the offering of a bribe and the fact that the public official was given a request for the offering of a bribe at that time, it can be reinforced evidence for the confession of the person who offered the offering of a bribe.

(c) In the case of bribery, a public official means not only a duty prescribed by a statute, but also a duty related to it, a duty related to it, or a duty that was in charge or is not actually in charge according to the duties and division of duties in the future, such as a duty, belonging to a statutory general authority, and all other duties to be performed on official duty

(d)in the case of bribery the benefit of bribery includes not only money, goods, and other property interests, but all tangible and intangible interests sufficient to meet human demand and desire, as well as any other tangible and intangible interests.

E. If a police officer promised to receive KRW 1.5 million through an investment of KRW 50 million in slot machine business and received KRW 35 million on 35 occasions each month, then he/she cannot be deemed to have received the benefit immediately by making an investment of KRW 50 million. It is merely a promise to receive KRW 3 million per month, that is, a promise to receive KRW 3 million per month, and the receipt of KRW 3 million per month is deemed to have received a bribe. As such, 15 million in itself is a bribe. However, the amount of actual bribe exceeds the ordinary benefit that may have been gained by making an investment of KRW 50 million, and the ordinary benefit here means the benefit that would have been gained if the police officer had made an investment regardless of his/her duties. Specifically, the interest rate and interest rate should not be considered in principle as to the above investment type, regardless of whether the police officer had received interest on the investment type, and thus, the interest rate and interest rate should not have been determined to have been determined to have been equivalent to one’s own interest on the investment type of business.

(a)Article 308 and Article 310(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 133(1)(d)(e) of the Criminal Act; Article 129.D. Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Do256 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 1774), Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1114), Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1760), Supreme Court Decision 91Do364 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1218), Supreme Court Decision 93Do2962 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong194, 194, 13729, 194, 193Do2979 delivered on June 13, 197).

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Jinsung (for the defendant No. 1) (for the defendant No. 1, for the defendant No. 2000)

Seoul High Court Decision 93No3305 delivered on February 22, 1994

The judgment below against the Defendants is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. First, Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal and Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period for submission of the appellate brief, to the extent of supplement in case of Defendant 1

A. As to the fact that Defendant 2 invested a gold of KRW 50 million and received KRW 30 million each month, the lower court determined that Defendant 1’s office, the head of the police station in Jongno-gu Seoul, Seoul, at the end of October 198, Defendant 1, the head of the police station in Jongno-gu, Seoul, made a solicitation to the effect that, at the office of Defendant 1, the head of the police station in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for the purpose of requesting for business permission under the name of the non-indicted 1, the head of the police station in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and that, at the same time, the head of the office of Defendant 1, the head of the police station in the police station in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, was given a bribe of KRW 10,00,000,000,000 for the above slot machine business, Defendant 1 would have received KRW 300,000,000 from the above business permission and received the bribe of KRW 10,500,0000,0000 each month.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below according to the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and the court below does not seem to have committed any violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss this issue.

In addition, even though Defendant 1 invested 50,000,000 won in the instant slot machine business and received monthly dividends of 3,00,000,000 won, it is obvious that the dividend rate is higher than 6% per month, and 70,000 won per annum, so it is difficult to gain such profits as a general method of investment. In addition, according to the records, it can be known that Defendant 1 was unable to make an investment in the instant slot machine business as above, and it was not given the opportunity of such investment itself without relation to the above Defendant’s duties. In light of this, it is not reasonable to argue that the Defendant’s profit-making of more than 50,00,000 won from ordinary investment in the instant slot machine business does not constitute a bribe, and therefore, it does not constitute a bribe.

However, the court below held that Defendant 1’s receipt of KRW 105,00,000 in aggregate from Defendant 2 does not constitute the acceptance of bribe itself, and that he obtained the status of an investor who can receive a fixed dividend of KRW 3,00,000 per month during the pertinent slot machine business period in itself and it is the acceptance of bribe and that the amount of the acceptance of bribe cannot be determined, as seen in the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor following the above, it is erroneous, but the appeal by the Defendants is not reasonable.

B. As to the remaining facts charged

The court below found that Defendant 2 delivered KRW 2,00,000 to Defendant 1 for the aforementioned slot machine business license, and issued KRW 1,000,000 on March 1, 1990, and KRW 2,000,000 on November 1 of the same year to the purport that each illegal act of each of the slot machine businesses operated by Defendant 2 may be seen well, and the court below determined that Defendant 2 offered a bribe in connection with Defendant 1’s duties and Defendant 1 received a bribe in connection with his duties.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below according to the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and the court below does not seem to have committed any violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss this issue.

Meanwhile, Defendant 2 asserted that there is no supporting evidence for his confession with respect to the offering of the above bribe. However, the supporting evidence for confession can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is true, not a processed one, but also indirect or circumstantial evidence, not a direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2972, Feb. 23, 1993). According to the evidence cited by the court below, Defendant 1, the other party to the offering of the above bribe, denies the receipt of the above bribe, but it is time for the above fact that Defendant 2 only delivered Defendant 2 at each time, and the fact that Defendant 1, the other party to the offering of the above slot machine itself received a request for the permission to conduct the above slot machine business. Thus, it is not reasonable to dispute this point.

In addition, even though Defendant 1 was in office as the chief of the Public Security Headquarters or assistant on March 2, 1990 and around November 1990, and did not directly take charge of the business of the slot machine establishment, the duty in the crime of bribery refers to not only the duty prescribed by the law, but also the duty related to the former, or the duty or duty to be assigned in the future, and even if the duty is not actually carried out according to the duty and duty division, it refers to all the duties of the public official, such as the duty belonging to the general authority and authority under the law. (See Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568 delivered on September 25, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 91Do364 delivered on February 28, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 93Do2962 delivered on March 2, 199; Supreme Court Decision 93Do2962 delivered on September 2, 194).

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

A. As seen earlier, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1’s status as an investor who can receive 50,000,000 won monthly dividends of KRW 105,000 per month with the investment of KRW 3,00,000 in Defendant 2’s slot machine business and the monthly amount of KRW 3,000,000 per month, and cannot be viewed as 105,000 per annum of the above total amount of bribe received from Defendant 2 cannot be viewed as 105,00,000 per se, and that the said investment amount cannot be determined as 50,000,000 won per month with the interest rate of KRW 3,00,000 per month for the above business period, and the economic value of the above status can be determined as 00,000,000,000 more than that of the commercial bank’s deposit or commercial bank’s certificate of deposit, etc. It cannot be determined as 00,0000,000 interest rate per annum.

B. However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below. First of all, the court below did not regard the amount of 105,000,000 won which Defendant 1 received in reality as a bribe, and the status as an investor to the above slot machine business as an investor in the above slot machine business as a bribe is deemed as a bribe.

Generally, in the crime of bribery, profits which are the contents of a bribe include not only money, goods, and other property interests, but also all types of and intangible profits sufficient to meet human demand and desire (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Do1793, Oct. 10, 1979; 78Do1793, Dec. 22, 1992; 94Do129, Nov. 4, 1994; 94Do129, etc.). For example, if a public official acquired property of another person in relation to his duties at a price higher than the market price and obtains profits that can be disposed of at the market price, the bribe itself shall be deemed to be the acceptance of bribe. However, according to the above 300,000 won investment in this case, Defendant 1’s promise to receive the bribe from 300,000 won or more, it shall not be deemed to have been made up of 100,000 won or more.

Thus, the above amount of 105,00,000 won which Defendant 1 received is a bribe in itself. However, since the above defendant invested 50,000,000 won in order to gain such profit, the actual amount of the bribe shall be the amount exceeding the ordinary profit which can have been gained by investing 50,000,000 won. Here, the ordinary profit which the above defendant can obtain is the profit that the above defendant could have obtained by making an investment regardless of his duties, unless there are other special circumstances. Specifically, since the form of the investment in this case was not different from that of the defendant 2 to the above party, the above defendant 2 should have lent the money in substance and received interest thereon, regardless of his duties, and thus, it should have to be considered that the above interest would have been equivalent to the above interest rate of 50,000,000 won, and the above interest rate of 00,000 won would have to have been paid to the same person in principle, and there is no need to consider the above interest rate of 10,00,00,00, and00,0.

Of course, when there are various possibilities in the determination of the above ordinary profits, the facts should be recognized in favor of the defendant in accordance with the principle that the defendant would be favorable to the defendant, but it is not possible to calculate the value of the bribe received by the defendants because it is impossible to determine such profits as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated whether the amount exceeds 50,00,000 won under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., but it is not possible to calculate the value of the bribe by misunderstanding the legal principles on the legal principles on the crime of acceptance of bribe or calculation of the amount of bribe, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an unlawful crime affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the argument is reasonable within this scope.

3. However, since the part found not guilty and the facts charged are identical or concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)