Where the crime of bribery is extended to the executive officers of government-managed enterprises subject to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes does not change the executive officers of government-managed enterprises without restriction on the application of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act to the executive officers of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but it shall apply only where the amount of the accepted bribery is requested, demanded or promised by foreigners other than foreigners,

Articles 4 and 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 129, 130, 131 of the Criminal Act, Article 132 of the Criminal Act

On November 23, 1971, Supreme Court Decision 71Do1786 delivered on November 23, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 99Da1913 delivered on September 1, 199, Supreme Court Decision 19No3-56 delivered on July 1, 199, Supreme Court Decision

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court (70Da49618)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The 80-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

70,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is that the court below's determination of the sentence against the defendant is too unfasible and unfair. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that the court below has violated the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In other words, Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes"), deeming the executive officers of government-managed enterprises as public officials and punishing them as the subject of bribery under Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, shall be deemed to be a public official only in the case of an aggravated punishment under Article 2 of the same Act. Notwithstanding the fact that the executive officers of government-managed enterprises change the subject of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act without any restriction and do not require any punishment in the case where the executive officers of government-managed enterprises receive a bribe, regardless of the amount paid, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 4 of the above Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act, thereby affecting the judgment by applying Article 4 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act and Article 129 of the Criminal Act with regard to the fact that the defendant received a bribe at one time and 300,00

2. Therefore, with respect to the assertion that there has been a violation of the law which affected the judgment of the defense counsel, the court below should first consider the difference in status between the executive officers of government-managed enterprises and public officials, namely, as shown in Articles 56, 61, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, and public officials shall faithfully perform their duties for the State on their own personal basis, regardless of whether they are directly or indirectly in connection with their duties, and public officials shall not receive any case, donation, or entertainment, and public officials shall not engage in any act detrimental to their dignity regardless of whether they are inside or outside of their duties, unlike the executive officers of government-managed enterprises, with high pride and responsibility different from the original executive officers of government-managed enterprises, and the purpose of Article 1 of the Act or the arrangement order and punishment regulations of Article 2, Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases and Special Cases, which can be seen by Article 4 of the same Act shall not be interpreted to have been expanded to have been expanded to have more than 50 days from the government-managed employees to the extent of foreign bribery promise.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from the violation of the law that affected the judgment in this regard. Thus, the decision of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is not necessary to judge the remaining grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and defense counsel, and it is again decided as follows.

3. The defendant, as the head of the construction division of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, received three copies of the above construction cost from the representative of the North Korean Electric Power Corporation, the representative of the North Korean Electric Power Station, who entered into a contract for the construction of the main building of the power plant and the retaining wall of the Jinan-An-An-An-An-An-an-an-an-an-an-U-an-U-U-U-U-U-U.S.-an-an-U.-an-U.S.-an-an-U.-an-U.S.-an-U.-an-U.-an-U.S.-an-U.-an-U.-an-U.S.-an-U.-U.-U.S.-an-U.-U.-an-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-A.-U.-U.S.-A.-U.-an-an-an-U.

However, it is decided as follows according to the additional prosecution which is the ancillary in the trial of the prosecutor.

Criminal facts

The defendant, as the chief of construction of the Korean Electric Power Corporation, the government-managed enterprise, entered into a contract on November 26, 1968 with the construction of the non-indicted 2 corporation, and took overall charge of all the affairs, such as the design, construction supervision, and conclusion of contracts, in the construction of the lower parts of the power plant and the retaining wall, which was completed on June 30, 1970, for the construction of the above hydroelectric Power Corporation, the above company. From around June 1969, the non-indicted 1, the representative director of the above Korean Electric Power Corporation, takes overall charge of all the affairs, such as the design, construction supervision, and conclusion of contracts, etc., of the above construction work. The defendant, on September 21, 1968, received a request to increase the construction cost of approximately KRW 200 million from the 20th executive officer of the above Korean Electric Power Corporation, and paid the compensation amount of KRW 10,027,000 to the 30th executive officer's new construction contract.

The summary of evidence is the same as the evidence column of the judgment of the court below, and it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In contrast to the law, the so-called judgment falls under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 129 of the Criminal Act. Since there is room for considering the circumstances such as the first offender in the case of the defendant's principal crime of this case, the defendant resigned from the company that he had served for 15 years or more as the case of this case, and his depth is divided after the crime, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months within the scope of the term of punishment under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act and shall be punished by imprisonment for 80 days within the number of days of detention before the sentence of the court below is sentenced under Article 57 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act and the crime of this case of the defendant is highly likely to be considered in the above circumstances, the execution of the above imprisonment has been suspended for 3 years from the day when the judgment became final and conclusive under Article 62 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and the amount of money that the defendant received by the defendant shall be confiscated by the same Article 134 of the same Act.

In order to constitute a crime under Article 2 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, the defense counsel argued that the amount of the accepted bribery shall be 500,000 won or more at one time, and that the sum of the received bribery of this case shall be 700,000 won or more at one time, but it shall not be accepted at one time because it does not violate Article 2 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and that the amount of the accepted bribery of 500,000 won or more at one time, as alleged by the defense counsel, shall not be deemed to have been received at least 50,000 won at one time as a single crime, and it shall be deemed that the defendant received more than 50,000 won at one time as a single crime, and that it shall be deemed that the defendant received more than 70,000 won at one time as a total amount from the Corporation around September 1, 196 and around April 20, 197.

Therefore, the appeal against the defense counsel is groundless, and thus, it is not accepted.

4. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

Judges Man-Operation (Presiding Judge)