(a) Bribery and scope of duties in the case of bribery;

(b) Whether it is possible for an apartment building constructor to receive a lump sum loan to cover part of the purchase price by delegation from occupants to handle the affairs of others;

A. The legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society, and thus, the legal interest of bribery is the non-purchase of the act of performing the duties. Therefore, the relevance to the duties in the bribery is not only the duties determined by the law, but also the duties related to such duties, and even if the duties are not actually performed according to the duties and duties of the public official, such as the duties, etc. under the general authority and authority of the law, but also all duties to be performed by the public official according to the relevant duties, regardless of the nature of the duties in the bribery, regardless of whether there is a compulsory violation, whether there is a solicitation, and whether there is a request or not.

B. The defendant acquired (A) apartment constructed by the non-indicted 1 (A) and completed the completion inspection, and sold out to the non-indicted 1 (b), and appropriated part of the apartment sale price with the loan of the bank. If the defendant received the loan individually from the above bank upon delegation from the tenant and appropriated it to the sale price, the defendant is in a position to handle the affairs of the above tenant.

(a) Article 129 of the Criminal Act; Article 355(2)

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1527 delivered on February 22, 1983

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Tae-tae et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 83No181 delivered on May 25, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

If evidence is collected at the time of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, it shall be sufficient to recognize the facts charged by the defendant, and it shall not be sufficient to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it shall not be possible to mislead the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and shall not contain any reasons for illegality.

Since the legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society, and the non-purchase of the act of performing the duties is the direct legal interest of the bribery. Therefore, the relevance of the duties in the bribery is not only the duties prescribed by the law but also the duties related to the duties prescribed by the law, the duties related to the former or to be in charge in the future, and the duties and the duties to be assigned in the future, but also the duties of the public official, such as the duties, etc., under the general authority and authority of the law, shall be regarded as the duties in the bribery.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, since the defendant was a person in charge of the reclamation of public waters while working in the farmland and farmland development fraternity in the Donnam-do from December 5, 1980 to October 30, 1981, and the defendant received money and valuables from Nonindicted 1, a person in charge of the affairs related to the reclamation of public waters in the Donnam-do, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, which was constructed by the Nonindicted Donnam-gun, while performing the affairs related to the authorization of completion of reclamation of public waters in the Donnam-do, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, which was executed by the Nonindicted 1, a person in charge of the affairs related to the reclamation of public waters in the Donnam-do, and this is clear that

2. Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

If evidence is collected at the time of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime at the time of the original adjudication against the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the payment agreement with the first instance court was renewed as a quasi-loan agreement for consumption. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred in its finding process of facts, misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and misunderstanding the

The crime of breach of trust is established when a person who administers another's business obtains pecuniary benefits or has a third party obtain such benefits through an act in violation of one's duty and thereby causes loss to the principal. As such, the subject of the crime of breach of trust is a person who administers another's business. As legally established by the court below, the defendant acquired apartment money constructed by the deceased Kim Jong-jin and completed the completion inspection and sold part of the apartment sale price to the non-indicted White-jin, etc., and appropriated for the loan of the above bank Gwangju branch. Thus, if the defendant received an individual loan from the above bank by delegation from the tenant and appropriated it for the sale price, the defendant was in a position to deal with the above tenant's business, and as for the non-indicted Ma-sik, he was in a position to manage the best-style business by transferring the name of the above tenant to transfer the above 101, 102, 103, and 105, and agreed to transfer the ownership of the defendant's name to the registration of the ownership. Therefore, there is no reason to appeal.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)