If the amount received as a bribe is returned to the receiver after consuming the amount received as a bribe, the additional collection is required

If the amount received as a bribe is consumed in a virtual way, and the person who received the bribe has returned the amount equivalent to the equivalent amount, the equivalent amount shall be collected from the person who received the bribe, considering it as impossible to confiscate it.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant 1

Busan District Court Musan Branch Court (72 Gohap268)

(1) The part on Defendant 1 in the original judgment is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualifications for two years.

85 days of detention before the original sentence shall be included in the above imprisonment.

75,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 and the defendant 1's appeal are dismissed, respectively.

The prosecutor's grounds for appeal should have been sentenced to a sentence equivalent to the former sentence because the defendant et al. committed this case's crime is extremely bad, and the defendant et al.'s punishment should be sentenced to a sentence equivalent to the former sentence. However, the court below's judgment is too unjustifiable that the defendant et al.'s punishment was sentenced to the defendant 1 year of imprisonment and the defendant 2's imprisonment, and the defendant 1 committed this case's appeal. The defendant 1's ground for appeal lies in the situation where the neighbor's person was sentenced to a punishment, and the defendant 1 committed this case's punishment was against the defendant et al., taking into consideration the young's day before the young person's day, and it is erroneous that the court below's punishment of imprisonment with prison labor imposed by the court below against the defendant et al. is reasonable, and that the amount of punishment is less than 7 months of punishment and 100 won of the defendant et al.'s punishment should be collected from the defendant et al., and it is not erroneous.

Therefore, in this respect, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 by the defendant is eventually justified, and the appeal against the defendant 2 and the appeal against the defendant 1 by the defendant 1 are groundless.

In this regard, the part against Defendant 1 in the original judgment is reversed, and the judgment is to be rendered again.

The criminal facts and evidence against Defendant 1 are the same as that of the court below if the non-indicted 1 excluded from the appearance of the investigation report, etc. prepared on September 2, 1972 by the police officer of the Chungcheong Police Station as evidence, and the criminal facts and evidence against Defendant 1 are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 131(1) and Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2 of the same Act Article 228, Article 229, Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 3 of the same Act Article 227, Article 229 of the Criminal Act; Article 3 of the same Act provides that one act constitutes several crimes; Article 3 of the false preparation of official document constitutes a crime under several crimes; and Article 3 of the same Act provides that if one act constitutes several crimes as a result of delivery of the order for enlistment in active duty service, it shall be sentenced to the punishment prescribed for the crime of uttering of false public document, such as submission of a written prediction of enlistment as a result of delivery of the order for enlistment in active duty service, and Article 29(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment of imprisonment shall be imposed on the original of the authentic document, the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor among the punishments prescribed by the preceding part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that one of the above punishment shall be imposed within the term of imprisonment within 15 years.

In addition, both the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 and the defendant 1's appeal are to be dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the same reason as mentioned above.

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

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)