The term "public official's duties in the course of bribery" means the scope of duty of a requirement.

The term "public official's duties" refers to not only the duties belonging to the authority of the public official, but also the acts closely related to the duties. Thus, even if the defendant does not belong to his duties, the representative of the lawsuit which is the country is the Minister of Justice, but the specific procedural acts are conducted by his employees after obtaining approval from the head of the competent ministry, and the head of the competent ministry is allowed to submit his opinion to the Minister of Justice. In this case, the head of the competent ministry is closely related to his duties as to the process of performing the lawsuit and whether an appeal is filed.

Articles 129 and 130 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Do201 delivered on April 15, 1961 (Kakad 5784, 5783); Supreme Court Decision 129(6)1276 of the Criminal Act; Article 356(13) of the Criminal Act; Supreme Court Decision 4294Do292 delivered on October 12, 1961 (Supreme Court Decision 5805, Supreme Court Decision 9Do146 delivered on November 22, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 65Do604 delivered on November 22, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 129(1276)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court (69Da14187)

Supreme Court Decision 69Do2276 delivered on February 10, 1970

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the original sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for five years from the date of the final decision.

5,500,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

Of the facts charged in this case, the defendant was found not to have received a bribe of KRW 4,500,000 from Nonindicted Party 1 on January 1, 1968.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is as follows: First, the court below erred by erroneous interpretation of evidence.

In other words, according to the court below's reasoning that Non-Indicted 2 did not have a misunderstanding of the facts of the original state (A), and that Non-Indicted 3 did not have a misunderstanding of the facts of the non-Indicted 1's work, and that the defendant did not have a misunderstanding of the facts of the non-Indicted 4's work, and that the non-Indicted 2 and the non-Indicted 4 did not have a misunderstanding of the facts of the non-Indicted 1's work, and that the defendant did not have a misunderstanding of the facts of the non-Indicted 1's work, despite the fact that the non-Indicted 4's past work, he did not have a misunderstanding of the facts of the non-Indicted 1's work, and that the non-Indicted 4's work of the non-Indicted 1's personal loan relationship between the defendant's wife and the non-indicted 1's new construction and management of the non-indicted 4's work, the court below found the defendant's testimony of the non-indicted 1's tender.

Therefore, the court below's finding of facts as to the non-indicted 1's assertion that the non-indicted 2's testimony belongs to the court below's non-indicted 8's office and the non-indicted 1's testimony management statement of the non-indicted 8's office and the non-indicted 2's testimony management statement of the non-indicted 1's office and the non-indicted 8's office testimony of the non-indicted 1's office and the non-indicted 1's office testimony of the non-indicted 9's office and the non-indicted 4's office testimony of the non-indicted 8's office's office and the non-indicted 1's office testimony management statement of the non-indicted 8's office which the non-indicted 1's office and the non-indicted 1's office testimony management statement of the non-indicted 1's office and the non-indicted 1's office evidence inspection statement of the non-indicted 9's court below's non-indicted 1's office testimony and the non-indicted 5's office testimony.

The following facts are examined as to the (C) of the judgment below. The court below recognized that the defendant was issued three cashier's checks issued by Nonindicted 5 and four thousand won in cash with the intention of solicitation by Nonindicted 1 while the defendant, based on various evidences at the time of the original judgment, stated in the office of the Director General of the Cultural Heritage Management Bureau at the time of January 10, 1968, the fact that it was consistent with the facts of the defendant's statement from March 10 of the same year to the defendant 145,00,000 won, which was total construction cost, from March 10 of the same year, to the office of the defendant 1, 1968. However, according to the prosecutor's interrogation of the suspect's interrogation of Nonindicted 1 and the statement of statement issued by the witness before returning to the court below, the court below's decision that the defendant's testimony of Nonindicted 14 and the defendant's statement to the effect that it was not possible to recognize the competition of the defendant's defense counsel's testimony in the above 17th trial.

The defendant has served as the Director General of the Cultural Heritage Administration from December 15, 1963 to February 28, 1969.

1. On October 12, 1966, the representative of ○○ Construction Co-Defendant 3 (Co-defendant 3) signed a contract for construction of a new crepit with Nonindicted 15 (the actual ordering person of the construction work) who leased the Hu○○○ Construction Co-Defendant 3 (the actual ordering person) from the Cultural Heritage Management Office and performed the construction work, the Defendant is in charge of all supervisory affairs, such as the selection of a constructor with respect to the execution of the construction work, design, evaluation of weather, completion inspection, etc., and in particular, he was able to receive the construction cost with respect to the construction work, and even during the construction work, he was in charge of an appraisal by Nonindicted 3 with respect to the construction work, and thus, during the cultural heritage management country, he was unable to receive the construction cost due to this subdivision, and thus, on June 30, 1967:00, around 07:00, the Defendant and Nonindicted 2, who known the fact that he was able to accept the construction cost and offer it as soon as a bribe under 500.

2. On July 1, 1967, at the office of the Director General of Jongno-gu Office of Cultural Heritage Management in Jongno-gu, Seoul, the first place of November 1, 1966, Nonindicted Party 1, at the time of the construction of the new construction of the Gyeongdo Museum in the Gyeongdo, which was ordered by the Dong state, shall be nominated by the designated successful bidder with Nonindicted Party 1, at the time of the construction of the new construction of the Gyeongdo Museum in the Gyeongdo, which was ordered by the Dong state, to be executed by him. The case title is that: three copies (3,5,6 No. 4,6) of the number of shares per 1,00,000 of the face value of the business of the head office in the Gyeongdo in the name of Nonindicted Party 16, the representative director of the said company, receive 3,000,00

3. On March 3, 1967, Soyang Tourist Hotel located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do and on April 1, 1967, Non-Indicted 8 (original Co-Defendant 17) against the State at the defendant's company's home, Non-Indicted 17 against the State regarding the lawsuit seeking ownership transfer registration due to the termination of trust at 71,950 Won-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seoul, the appellate court (the first instance court), even if the State lost against the State at the Seoul High Court (the country failure), the appeal is not filed and the lawsuit is requested to be completed as soon as the case is concluded and provided under its purport. (A) On April 1, 1967, the defendant was aware that he received from Non-Indicted 8 on May 5, 1967 at the defendant's own house, the number of shares per 1,000,000 won (the above number of shares per 10,000,000 won per 10,000.

Each fact in the judgment of the court below is examined as evidence

1. Part of the statements made by the Defendant, Nonindicted 12, and 1 in the trial court at the trial court, which are consistent with the facts of the judgment

1. Of the trial records of the court below, the part of the statement made in accordance with the above judgment among the statements made in relation to the defendant 3, 5, 8, red booms, witness 9, and 10 on the part of the trial records of the court below

1. Part of the statement made by the prosecutor in compliance with each of the facts stated in the judgment in each of the non-indicted 3, 1, 11, 8, and changes after the public prosecutor's protocol;

1. In full view of the existence and contents of the recorded tape with respect to Defendant 1 of the lower court’s judgment, the existence of the recorded tape, the existence of the seized evidence Nos. 4 to 8, and the result of each verification by the party members of the lower court, each of the relevant files, each of the newly constructed of the Gyeongbuk-do Museum, the relationship between the Gyeongbuk-do Museum and the Gyeongdong Museum, and the records file of

However, each so-called judgment of the defendant is a concurrent crime under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 129 of the Criminal Act. Since the above-mentioned punishment falling under Article 37 of the Criminal Act is a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the same Act, among them, Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act provides that when the defendant serves in the military for a long period of time and has contributed to the number of the countries, and the defendant has a high military service, and there are reasons to consider the situation of opening through confinement life for a period of one year after the crime, and other circumstances of this crime are significant, it shall be limited to 3 years from the date of punishment, within the scope of the term of punishment reduced by discretionary mitigation under Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and if the defendant has already received the above sentence for 80 days prior to the date of detention under Article 57 of the same Act, it shall be limited to 150 years from the grace period of the punishment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case on January 10, 1968, the fact that Nonindicted 1 delivered money from Nonindicted 1, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 13 at the time of the original trial, to Nonindicted 5, a competitive bidder at the time of the original trial on March 10, 1968, the fact that Nonindicted 1 received a bribe after receiving KRW 4,50,00 from Nonindicted Co. 1’s request from Nonindicted Co. 13 to execute the construction from around March 10, 1968, the same was stated in the interrogation protocol, statement, etc. of Nonindicted 1 as to the public prosecutor’s preparation, but according to Nonindicted 1’s testimony, statement, etc. at the original trial and the trial court, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 14’s statement, etc., the representative of Nonindicted Co. 13 at the time of the original trial, the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 delivered money to Nonindicted Co. 7, a person scheduled to open to the competitive tender for the Matopy Corporation, and there is no evidence that the Defendant accepted money.

Therefore, not guilty is declared by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Heung-hoon (Presiding Judge) Constitution of the Republic of Korea