A. Requirements for establishing a crime of referral of bribery under Article 132 of the Criminal Act

(b) Where the head of a military office of education and the head of a general affairs division accept money and valuables under a title of case on the placement of employment workers at national schools, whether the crime of good offices accepted bribery

A. The acceptance of a bribe under Article 132 of the Criminal Act is established when a public official who is in a position to directly or indirectly related to another public official who deals with the pertinent duties and who is in a position which can legally or practically prevent and exert a certain influence, gives, demands, or promises a bribe to arrange matters belonging to another public official's duties by taking advantage of his position.

B. Since the head of the Gun Office of Education is a person who is responsible for the practical affairs of personnel exchange and adjustment of the employees of national schools within the jurisdiction of the Gun Office of Education, and is a person in a special relationship that may have a substantial influence on the appointment of the principal of national school who is the appointment authority of the employment authority of national school, and therefore the head of the Gun Office of Education is a person who receives money and valuables under the title of the case on the appointment of the employee.

Article 132 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Do403 decided Feb. 13, 1973; 82Do403 decided Jun. 8, 1982; 83Do894 decided Jun. 14, 1983

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Park Hun-chul

Daegu District Court Decision 85No9 delivered on January 16, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the record, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant on the facts charged that the defendant received entertainment and money from the non-indicted 1 in relation to the referral of employment in the national school of the non-indicted 2, is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

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

In full view of the documentary evidence of the judgment below, the case title for arranging the defendant to appoint Nonindicted 3 as a national school employee may sufficiently recognize the criminal facts that received money and valuables from Nonindicted 4 as stated in the judgment. The decision of the court below that found the defendant guilty is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and considering the record, it does not mean that the money and valuables received by the defendant are just and there

Article 132 of the Criminal Act is established when a public official who is in a position to directly or indirectly related to another public official who deals with the relevant duties and who receives, demands, or promises a bribe in connection with the referral of matters belonging to another public official's duties by taking advantage of his/her position. The defendant is a manager of the first military office of education in charge of the personnel exchange and adjustment of the employees of national schools within the jurisdiction of the office of education. Thus, since the defendant is a person who is in a special relationship that can have a de facto influence on the appointment of the employees of the head of national school who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the appointment of the National School of Education

The issue is groundless.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)