(a) A bribe equivalent to 70,000 won or more in the market price; and

B. In a case where the cashier’s checks received together with the solicitation were deposited in the bank and returned to the bank after exchange, there is intention to accept the bribe (affirmative)

A. In a case where a defendant, as the director general of the labor office of the Korea Labor Agency, who was engaged in the business of transmitting overseas employees to a foreign country, requested the dispatch of a contact loan, etc. and received stocks of an amount equivalent to KRW 70,000 at the market price, even if the contact size was not so significant, it cannot be deemed as merely an entertainment belonging to the scope of private and educational precedents, and it cannot be deemed as a bribe.

B. Even if the defendant returned the cashier's checks issued in the case from Nonparty (A) to Nonparty (B) at least two weeks after the request for entry and dispatch, if the above checks were deposited in the bank account of the defendant, and thereafter, it is impossible to believe that the defendant's employees could not be able to believe as a result of questioning about the above (A). Thus, if the defendant returned the cashier's checks to Nonparty (A), the defendant had the intention to accept the bribe.

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 80No1611 delivered on May 12, 1983

The appeal shall be dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendant’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below affirmed the first instance court's judgment recognizing that the market price offered by Co-Defendant 70,000 won to Co-Defendant 2 was received as bribe in relation to the defendant's duties, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's price of the stocks received from Co-Defendant 2 falls under a bribe provided in relation to the defendant's duties, even if the size of the contact is not significant after the fact, the defendant's offering of the stocks constitutes a bribe in relation to the defendant's duties. The court below's judgment is just in holding that the defendant's offering of the stocks constitutes a bribe in relation to the defendant's duties, even if it is not sufficient to view it as a bribe in relation to the defendant's duties. According to the records, the defendant's offering of the above stocks constitutes a bribe in relation to the defendant's business.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 by Defendant’s defense counsel.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance which acknowledged that the defendant received KRW 500,000,00 from the non-indicted 1 corporation's representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to transfer the above company's human resources from the non-indicted 2 before Mexico's Mexico-dong at around 00, 1980, and the case at the request of the non-indicted 1 corporation's representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul to transfer the above company's human resources from the non-indicted 50,000 won, 50,000 won for the cashier's checks issued to the non-indicted 2 corporation's non-indicted 50,000,000 won for the above fact-finding after comparing the record of the evidence preparation which was conducted for the above fact-finding, and thus, the court below rejected the above 2000,000,0,000,00,00 won.

3. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)