(a) The time when the deposit contract is concluded, and whether the deposit contract is concluded in case where an employee of a financial institution does not deposit the money received;

(b) Whether the deposit contract in a handwritten passbook is null and void;

(c) Specific purport and degree of the charges stated in the indictment;

(d) The number of offenses of occupational embezzlement committed by several times by the exercise of a single, single, or continuous criminal interest;

(e) Whether the check is a check under the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, even though the check issued as a certificate to confirm the obligation, which is not accepted in the form of securities between the parties;

(f) Whether the drawer of the check is responsible under the Illegal Check Control Act, in case where the holder of the check has anticipated to not pay the check and presented a payment;

G. Whether confessions made by the prosecutor or the police should be denied in a case where the facts charged in the trial court are denied

(h) Requirements for raising that the confession of the defendant is not voluntarily stated, and effects of recognized cases;

(i)Admissibility of evidence in relation to another accomplice in the statement prepared by the accomplice;

(j) Probative value of a written statement prepared by a suspect during the course of interrogation by a judicial police officer

(k) Whether the value of condominium sales rights and golf membership rights that have been destroyed or seized to an investigation agency is appropriate;

(l) Whether Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is applied where the executive officers of government-managed enterprises accept money and valuables in relation to their duties while in office as public officials

(m) Bribery of receiving and receiving money and valuables not accompanied by any violation of duties by public officials, guidance of and supervision of partitions delegated to Mayors/Do Governors, and duties related to the Minister of Construction

A. The deposit contract is established when a depositor provides a financial institution with money in expression of the intent of deposit, and a financial institution obtains confirmation of the amount of money according to its intention, and even if an employee of a financial institution embezzled the money without deposit to the financial institution, there is no complaint in the establishment of the deposit contract.

B. Since the head of a Tong is only a certificate evidencing the fact of a deposit contract, the deposit contract already formed by the head of a Tong cannot be deemed retroactively null and void.

C. In the indictment, it is necessary to specify the facts to specify the time, place, method, etc. of the offense. The indictment is required to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, it is desirable to clearly specify it as possible in the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, it may create unnecessary obstacles to the institution and maintenance of the prosecution. In other words, it is sufficient to specify the facts of the offense, namely, the limit to specify the facts of the offense, i.e., the extent that the time and place does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, the extent to which the territorial jurisdiction may be replaced by the degree to which the elements of the offense are expressed, and the method thereof, etc.

D. The so-called occupational embezzlement is so-called a single and continuous criminal intent, and if the act is committed by a single or continuous criminal intent, it can be recognized as a single crime even if the act is committed by comprehensively identifying it. Thus, even if the crime of occupational embezzlement lasts for about four years and three months, if the crime of occupational embezzlement was connected through the entire period and all of the embezzlements constitute embezzlement of the money that is kept and managed on behalf of the bank, the damage legal interest is the same, and therefore, it is reasonable to grasp it as a single crime.

E. Even if a certificate issued to confirm the claim and the obligation and the special agreement was entered into between the parties not to be accepted in the securities until the settlement of accounts, there is no ground that the check does not constitute a check under the Control of Illegal Check Control Act.

F. Since the Illegal Check Control Act punishs the drawer of a check which issued a check with no par value on account of the shortage of a transaction or deposit, in a case where the holder presented a check on the payment date, but did not pay it, the drawer of the check cannot be exempted from the criminal liability for violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, and it is natural that the holder of the check knowingly presented it with the knowledge that the check will neither be traded nor be paid as a shortage of deposit, and therefore, the check shall not be deemed to have been disposed of as a default on payment on account of the reasons not attributable to the drawer.

G. The defendant's confessions at the prosecutor's office or the police can not be established in the way that the confessions at the prosecutor's office or the police should be denied the voluntariness or credibility of his statement, and there is no logic that only the statements at the trial court can be trusted by the evidence law, and that the statement at the investigative agency should be rejected due to the lack of voluntariness or credibility.

H. The reason for suspecting that the confession is not voluntarily stated under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act is insufficient only by the assertion that there is no voluntariness, and the judge must hear concrete facts of adviser, assault, threat, physical restraint, unfair prolongedization, network, and other methods, which are suspected to have considerable grounds for the existence of voluntariness of confession, and accordingly, the burden of proof for the confessions must be borne by the prosecution officers only when there is a doubt that the voluntariness of confession is reasonable and considerable.

I. A written statement, etc. prepared by an accomplice constitutes hearsay evidence in relation to another accomplice, and thus, in this case, the issue of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be raised, and may be admitted as evidence pursuant to Articles 310-2 through 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(j) In a case where a judicial police officer, in the course of investigating a suspect, requests the suspect to submit a written statement in the form of a written statement, which must be recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol under Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the admissibility of evidence of the written statement should be determined in accordance with Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as in the interrogation protocol prepared by an investigative agency other than the prosecutor, as well as in the protocol of interrogation prepared by the investigative agency.

(k) Article 134 of the Criminal Act provides that when a person or a third party, who knows that an offender or a third party, has confiscated a bribe or money and valuables to be offered to a bribe, and is unable to confiscate it, the value thereof shall be collected as a penalty. The purport of the provision is to deprive him of benefits from the person receiving the bribe. Since a condominium sales right or golf membership right is a certificate proving the right to receive a bribe or the right as a member, and it is not the owner of the right, even though the right is not the owner of the right, it does not extinguish the right of sales right or membership, which is a certificate, or it is confiscated by an investigation agency, the specific gain still remains, and there is no violation of law

(l) In the application of the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the executive officers of the government-managed enterprise shall be deemed public officials in the application of the provisions of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, and each crime is established when the executive officers of the government-managed enterprise have committed the crimes under Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act with respect to the duties of the government-managed enterprise, and it is clear that there is no objection to the application of the ex post facto bribery, etc., regardless of the establishment of the crime of ex post facto bribery, in case where a person who is the executive officers of the government-managed enterprise receives money and valuables in relation to his duties while in

(m) Bribery is a process in the performance of duties and the trust of the society, and the legal interest of which is the direct protection of the law is the non-purchase of the act of performance of duties. Therefore, the illegality of the bribe does not prevent any violation of the duty and any solicitation, and even if the guidance and supervision of the snow clubs was delegated to each Mayor/Do governor, the competent Minister shall direct and supervise the state administrative affairs delegated to the head of each local government. Therefore, if the defendant was in charge of the direction and supervision of the tourist facilities companies such as tourist hotel golf clubs by assisting the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the relationship between the defendant's duties

A. Articles 111, 532, and 702(b) of the Civil Act. Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act is Article 254 of the same Act. Articles 37 and 356(e) of the Criminal Act are Article 1 of the Illegal Check Control Act. Article 2 of the same Act is Article 317 of the same Act. Article 310-2 (h) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 313 of the same Act is Article 313 (k) of the same Act. Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 134 of the same Act, Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act.

Supreme Court Decision 82Do1479 delivered on September 14, 1982

Kim Jong-ho et al.

Defendants

Attorney Park Chang-chul, Min-young, Park Young-young, Park Jong-young, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Jong-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 84No138,959 (Joint Judgment) Decided April 24, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of days of detention pending trial after the appeal shall be 55 days each included in the imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant Kim Jong-ho, Dong Kim Dong-dong, and defendant 1 and 2.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal of this case are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief, etc., as follows. The grounds of appeal of this case are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

1. The point of occupational embezzlement of Defendant Kim Jong-ho and Dong Kim Dong-dong

30

1. The grounds of appeal on the violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, misapprehension of the legal principles on occupational embezzlement, mistake of interest rate and lack of reasons, etc.

2. Grounds of appeal on misapprehension of legal principles, violation of judicial precedents, etc., such as attorneys Cho Gi-chul, and an unspecified fact of crimes charged with inside and outside of the Republic of Korea.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as Defendant Kim Jong-ho, the South Pacific Leisure Complex, and the Geum River Development Co., Ltd.

1. Grounds of appeal as to the number of attorneys-at-law, Dong Kim-hee, and post-permanent condominiums admission fees

2. The grounds of appeal as to the cost of the incomplete construction work by the same defense counsel

3. The grounds of appeal as to the purchase price for the same defense counsel's office fixtures and fixtures

4. The grounds of appeal as to the design cost by the same defense counsel

5. The grounds of appeal as to wages of the same defense counsel, etc.

3. As to the violation of the Building Act, the Building Act, the Tourism Act, the Natural Parks Act, the Forestry Act, etc. by Defendant Kim Jong-ho, the South Pacific Leisure Complex, etc., the attorney Lee Young-hee's ground of appeal on the same violation, and the above ground of appeal by the above attorney Lee Jong-young as to

4. The ground of appeal by the above defense counsel as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act by Defendant Kim Jong-ho

5. Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

6. The offering of bribe to Defendant 1 and 2, etc.

1. The grounds of appeal as to the Lee Jong-won, Lee Jae-chul, Dong Jae-chul, Dong Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, After-Jeng and the defendant himself, violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, omission of judgment

2. Grounds of appeal on misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection by attorneys Lee Jae-chul

3. Grounds of appeal on misapprehension of legal principles as to the bribery of Attorney Lee Jae-chul

7. Ground of appeal on Defendant 4’s misapprehension of legal principle

8. Defendant 5’s ground of appeal

9. Each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Jong-ho, Dong Kim Dong-dong, and Defendant 4 as to the determination of punishment

1. Grounds of appeal against Defendant Kim Jong-ho, Dong Kim Dong-dong

2. Defendant 4’s ground of appeal

1. The point of occupational embezzlement of Defendant Kim Jong-ho and Dong Kim Dong-dong

1. The grounds of appeal as to the violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, misapprehension of the legal principles as to occupational embezzlement, mistake of interest rate, and lack of reasons, etc.

(가) 원심판결 이유기재에 의하면, 원심은 그 거시증거를 모아 피고인 김철호는 콘도미니엄, 골프장, 관광호텔, 위락시설등 관광휴양업을 주업으로 하는 명성그룹의 회장으로, 피고인 김동겸은 한국상업은행 행원으로 입사하여 1978.1.23 부터 같은 은행 혜화동지점 대리로 각 종사하여 오던 자들로서 피고인 김동겸이 1979.3.경 당좌담당대리직을 맡으면서 동 김철호와 명성관광의 당좌거래 관계로 친근하게 지내던 중 당시 교환결제에 돌아오는 어음의 결제에 급급해하던 위 김철호가 사업자금 2억원만 차용하여 주면 자기의 부채를 모두 해결하고 당시 건축중이던 서울 종로구 홍지동 소재의 예그린아파트 1동을 완공하여 그 분양대금으로 변제하겠다고 요청하자 동 김동겸은 사채자금 조달로 인한 구전취득의 이익을 노리고 동년 4.경 위 혜화동지점에서 사채중개업자인 공소외 이명률을 통하여 사채이자 보상조건으로 예금조성된 3,000만원의 보통예금을 예금지급청구서에 예금주의 인장을 몰래 찍어 부정인출한 후 그시경 위 자금차용 관계로 찾아온 동 김철호에게 교부하고 위 돈은 자신이 예금주 몰래 위와 같이 부정인출하여 마련한 돈이라고 설명하면서 동 지점에 비치된 거래원장까지 보여주었던 바, 동 김철호는 이를 인지하고서도 계속하여 자금조달을 요구하여 4회 내지 5회에 걸쳐 모두 2억원을 같은 방법으로 교부받았으나 위 2억원을 변제함이 없이 자신의 오성골프장(현,명성칸트리클럽)인수 계획, 레저산업에 대한 구상들을 설명하면서 앞으로도 계속하여 자금의 확대공급을 부탁함에 동 김동겸은 그렇게 할 경우 자신도 중간에서 더 많은 구전으로 상당한 이득을 얻을 수 있고 나중에 동 김철호의 사업계획이 무사히만 마쳐지면 부정인출금을 변상할 수 있음은 물론 자신에게도 막대한 보상이 돌아올 것이라고 판단, 부정인출에 의한 자금조달을 계속하기로 결의하고, 한편 달리 자금조달의 길이 없는 동 김철호도 사업의 규모를 급속도로 확장시켜 나가면 원리금 상환등 해결의 방안이 생길지도 모른다는 막연한 계산하에, 동 김동겸과 동 김철호의 이해관계가 일치되어 동 김철호가 수표나 어음을 발행하여 교환에 돌리면 동 김동겸이 부정인출한 자금으로 결제해주는 방법 등으로 사업자금을 조달하기로 합의하고 자금조달을 진행중 동 김철호의 자금사용이 방만하여 자금의 낭비가 많아지자 1980.4.경 부정인출의 내용을 잘 알고 있던 원심공동피고인(징역 1년 6월의 형 확정)을 명성의 간부로 파견하여 소요자금의 판단, 결정, 연락, 감시 등의 역활을 맡기는 일방 그를 통하여 부정인출자금을 전달받기로 3자 공모하여, 동 김동겸은 1979.4.경부터 동년 8.경까지는 위 이명률을, 1979.9.경부터 1983.7.말경까지는 공소외 박기서등을 사채중개인으로 선정하여 은행이자와 사채이자의 차액을 선지급하는 조건으로 예금주를 모집하기 시작하면서 동 박기서와는 매일 은행출근전 당일의 신규가입분, 해약분 및 소요자금에 대한 정보교환을 하고 퇴근후에는 당일이자 차액분을 결산하여 전달하는 등 조직적인 연락체제를 갖추면서 1979.4.경부터 동년 8.경까지는 보통예금 형식으로 1979.9.경부터 1982.6.경까지는 통지예금 형식으로, 1982.7.경부터 1983.7.말경까지는 정기예금 형식으로 각 예금조성케 하고 예금주들이 중개인들의 지시에 따라 동 지점창구에 나타나면 동 김동겸 등이 그들을 맞이하여 예금하는 금원을 교부받고 수기식 통장을 작성, 교부하여 그 금원을 동 은행을 위하여 보관 관리하게 되었으면 이를 정상 입금처리하여야 함에도 불구하고 이를 그대로 착복하거나 예금주가 작성하고 인감을 날인하여 제출한 거래신청서의 금액난에는 금 100만원만 기재하여 자신의 돈 100만원과 함께 자신의 통장을 기장계로 넘겨 입금처리하되 그 통장 1매에 여러 구좌를 연속적으로 찍게 하고 또 예금주 명의로 된 별도거래신청서 1매를 따로 만들어 예금주로부터 교부받은 금원을 정상 입금처리하되 예금주의 실인감이 아닌 자기가 임의로 새긴 나무도장을 사용하여 언제든지 자기가 필요하면 수시 인출할 수 있는 구좌에 임의로 입금하여 이를 착복하거나 또는 예금주로부터 받은 금원을 정상예금한 후 은행을 위하여 그 예금을 보관 관리하면서 거래원장을 취소시키고 즉시 인출하거나 신규예입시나 이자지급청구시 거래신청서 또는 이자전표에 자기가 인감을 대신 찍어 주면서 예금주 몰래 백지의 예금지급청구서에 재빨리 예금주의 도장을 찍어 두었다가 자금이 필요할 때 그 예금지급청구서를 사용하여 필요한 금액을 임의로 수시 인출착복하여 1979.4. 일자불상경부터 1983.7.말경까지 사이에 조성예금 합계 금 106,650,758,000원을 횡령하고(동 김철호가 가담한 이후의 횡령액수는 금 106,620,758,000원, 원심공동피고인이 가담한 이후의 횡령액수는 금 85,890,989,000원), 1979.4.일자불상경부터 동년 12.31까지 사이에 별표 1. (제1심 판결 별첨 이하 같다)기재와 같이 합계 금 9,530,753,000원을, 1980년 1년간 별표 2. 기재와 같이 합계 금 24,930,680,000원을, 1981년 1년간은 별표 3. 기재와 같이 합계 금 23,755,624,000원을, 1982년 1년간은 별표 4. 기재와 같이 합계 금 27,770,531,000원을, 1983.1.경부터 동년 7.말경까지 사이에는 별표 5. 기재와 같이 합계 금 20,663,170,000원을 동 김철호나 원심공동피고인이 알려주는 당일 소요될 어음결제금액 및 사업자금으로 현금과 자기앞수표 등으로 직접 동 김철호에게 전달하거나 또는 동 지점에 개설되어 있는 명성관광, 현대중건, 남태평양레저타운의 3개 기업의 당좌예금구좌나 명성관광, 명성라바, 현대중건, 남태평양레저타운, 금강개발, 명성칸트리, 명성전자의 7개기업의 보통예금구좌에 입금처리하거나 예금주들에 대한 이자지급에 충당하여 이를 횡령한 사실을 확정하였다.

(B) Examining the evidence established by the court below based on the records of fact-finding in light of the evidence established by the court below, the method of raising funds by Defendant Kim Dong-dong through the bond broker and transferred the funds to the defendant Kim Jong-ho or an enterprise that he manages, is somewhat different in many cases, but the method of raising funds may be determined by the following methods:

(1) If a former owner, through the introduction of a bond broker, has opened an ordinary deposit by finding the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch of the Korean Commercial Bank as a beneficiary of the bonds, he/she shall enter the president on the former owner (in any case, it shall be verified by the bond broker, through the bond broker, and through the bond broker; hereinafter the same shall apply) and in any case, he/she shall collect the money deposited in the bank by making a deposit application with the seal affixed by the former owner on the deposit application.

(2) The check, etc. deposited by the former owner shall be deposited into the so-called reserve account of the former owner when the former owner leaves his office at a considerable time after the former owner leaves his office, and the money kept in his custody (referring to his own account to be recovered) by ordering the president to cancel his deposit at the time of the former owner's retirement, but the head of the bank shall take measures to cancel the deposit.

(3) In the method of notification deposit, the president who has been prepared by the former owner shall keep the defendant Kim Dong-dong and shall make a ledger in the name of the former owner of the defendant Kim Dong-dong or another person, and shall prepare a separate ledger with a seal affixed in advance and deposit it in the front of the ledger.

(4) In the case of time deposit, the amount of KRW 1,00,000 (the amount to be received shall be KRW 50,000,000) shall be deposited only in the ledger prepared by the former owner himself/herself (the amount to be deposited shall be KRW 50,000) and shall be deposited into the so-called reserve fund in the form of a ledger or an ordinary deposit.

⑤ In all the above cases, Defendant Kim Dong-dong shall issue to all the states a formal passbook (However, there are cases where only an entry of the amount of deposit is made available on a hand, and as a result, Defendant Kim Dong-dong shall be indicated on the head of the Tong or the head of the bank, the head of the Tong or the head of the bank, and the bank shall pay the difference between the principal and the bond interest to the former State through the bond broker (except in case where the loan is requested and the loan is not received

(C) Generally, a deposit contract is formed when a depositor provides a financial institution with money in expression of the intent of deposit, and a financial institution obtains confirmation of the amount of money according to its intention, and even if an employee of a financial institution embezzled the money without deposit to the financial institution, there is no complaint for the establishment of a deposit contract.

However, in the case of a deposit by a check or a bill, it can be somewhat different in terms of the time of the establishment of the deposit contract, but in general, at the same time (in the case where a cashier's checks or a bill of exchange is immediately deposited in the financial institution in question) or on condition of suspension, it is formed at the same time as the bill of exchange (in the case where a balance of deposit is confirmed and a deposit is entered in the book), and in this case, even though Defendant Kim Dong-dong et al. did not deposit money in his name in accordance with normal business procedures and did not deposit money in the above name, if Defendant Kim Dong-dong et al. received money from the previous owner or an employee in charge of the counter and received money from the previous owner, the deposit contract between the previous owner and the Korean commercial bank is established.In this case, it cannot be proved that the bank did not know that the bank did not have any intention to use the certificate of deposit in this case and that the bank did not have any intention to use the certificate of deposit in this case.

Of course, among the multiple preceding owners of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that there was no intention of deposit from all or part of the fact that the amount of money to be paid to the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch is not normally deposited in the bank through Kim Dong-dong branch office, Kim Dong-dong branch office, the representative office of the Korean Commercial Bank branch office, and returned to the reputation group from the beginning of all or part of the Ba-dong branch office, and that there was no transfer of money to the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch. However, this cannot be readily concluded that there was no transfer of money to the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch from the beginning of all or part of the Ba-dong branch. However, this cannot be said to have been simply inferred, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the deposit in a single record, and rather, in this case where it is recognized that there was a prior owner confirming the deposit, or that there was a fact that the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch was written with various laws such as the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch office in order to deceiving the former and deducted the money.

In addition, the author argues that the investigation of this case was conducted in the course of the trial without a hedging and prejudice. The first instance court or the judgment below also did not know the whole appearance of the financial fraud of this case, which was conducted through the public offering of the bond broker, the former and the defendant Kim Dong-dong concurrent Office, due to the fact that the investigation of this case was conducted in the course of the trial without sufficient deliberation of the prosecutor's investigation and the facts charged. However, there is no reason to suspect the voluntariness of the defendant Kim Dong-dong and the law of this case, and there is no evidence to prove the designation of the former owner as seen above. This argument in this case is clear that even if the bonds broker or all former owners are co-offenders of this case as co-offenders of this case, without any clear ground, and even if it is found that there is no evidence to prove the designation of the former owner.

(D) Ultimately, the above judgment of the court below is just and up to this process, and it cannot be justified, and thus, it cannot be accepted that the court below's determination of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court without any reason.

2. Grounds of appeal as to misapprehension of legal principles, violation of judicial precedents, etc., including attorneys Lee Jong-chul and Lee Jong-chul-chul's general crimes charged with concurrent crimes

In the indictment, the name of the defendant and other matters by which the defendant can be identified, facts charged, applicable provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes shall be stated, and the statements in the indictment shall be made by specifying the time, time, place, and method of the crime to the court and to facilitate the exercise of his defense by limiting the object of the trial against the defendant and specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. As such, it is necessary to specify the date, time, place, and method of the crime as far as possible in the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act in the indictment. However, even if it is not necessary for the person's specific specification, it may be clear that such a request requires the minimum entry for the convenience of the trial and defense of the defendant even if it is not necessary for the person's specific specification, and it may interfere with the institution of the prosecution and the maintenance of the defendant's unnecessary requirements. In other words, it is sufficient to specify the limit to specify the crime, that is, the time and place where it does not conflict with territorial jurisdiction, and the method of specifying the elements of the crime.

Examining the instant occupational embezzlement, Defendant Kim Dong-dong in collusion with Defendant Kim Jong-ho at the end of April 1979 to the end of July 1983, if the former is to receive money deposited by the former owners in the same manner as specified in Section 1 at the Round branch of the Korean Commercial Bank, and have been in custody and management of the said money for the Korean Commercial Bank, the total amount of KRW 106,650,758,000 should be deposited and managed normally, despite the fact that, in spite of the fact that the sum of the money deposited by the former owners has to be deposited and managed for the Korean Commercial Bank, it should be deposited and managed normally, but it should not be charged at the time of the occurrence of the project fund for the settlement of bills, etc., for reputation, modern middle, modern, and the reputation, reputation, reputation, and reputation of the three companies of the South Pacific Bank.

The so-called so-called "an all-inclusive crime" refers to that multiple existing acts meet the elements of a crime only once, and the comprehensive one crime, collective crimes, connection crimes, and continuous crimes, etc. of consultation, which are originally one crime. It is possible to interpret that the provisions of the current Criminal Act are subject to concurrent crimes by eliminating the provisions of continuous crimes. In this case, the entries in the indictment should be stated separately, and the scope of res judicata is limited to the facts subject to adjudication, and the procedural inconvenience in prosecution and adjudication procedure is followed, so the so-called "intersection" is important. The "intersection" refers to repeating the same act through mutual connection, and the repeated act of the same kind is comprehensively assessed as satisfying only once the elements of a crime, and the other comprehensive crime is premised on the existence of multiple acts or demanding the continuity of an act, i.e., the continuity of an independent act, which is premised on the existence of several acts, and thus, it constitutes a single crime of connection and continuous crime of connection.

Therefore, the so-called occupational embezzlement is recognized as a single and continuous crime even if the damage legal interest is committed by a single or continuous crime.

According to the facts charged at the time of the original adjudication, even though the date and time of the crime extends over four and three months from April 1979 to the end of July 1983, it is clear that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to comprehensive one crime, and a violation of the case law (if there is no specific precedent, it appears that the precedent concerning the method of recording the facts of comprehensive one crime is referred to as a crime), since the crime of embezzlement is connected to the crime of embezzlement within that period through the entire period and all of the embezzlements are recognized as embezzlement of money that is managed in the business for the Korean commercial bank, it is recognized that the court below's single legal interest is reasonable and recognized as a single crime, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to comprehensive one crime (if there is no statement of specific precedent, it appears that the case concerning the method of recording the facts of comprehensive one crime is referred to as a misunderstanding of the lower court's fact finding.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as Defendant Kim Jong-ho, the South Pacific Leisure Association, and the development of Geum River, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in reporting and paying the tax base and amount of the corporate tax and special surtax for 1982 to the head of the competent tax office from March 16, 1983 when managing Kim Jong-ho Co., Ltd. (1) Kim Jong-ho Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Pacific Leisure Co., Ltd."), the lower court shall, notwithstanding the fact that the total sales amount of condominium sales in the business year is 11,165,717,351, it shall include the total sales amount of 2,985,00,000 won in the total sales amount to be refunded to the purchaser, and shall reduce the sales amount of 8,180,717,350,000 won which is 74,000 won which is less than 97,000 won, 196,70,740,000,000 won which is composed of 75,000 won and 97,04,06,74,740,70000 won.

2. The management of the Geum River Development Corporation:

In return and payment of corporate tax base and tax amount for the year 1982 to the head of the tax office of the Korea Development Bank on March 16, 1983, the old wage of 14,793,800 won which was not actually paid by manipulating the wage ledger was paid, and the defendant Nam-Pacific Korea Ltd., Inc., a corporation that operates a business of constructing and selling condominiums, which is a tourist resort, and the representative director of the corporation, Kim Jong-ho, a corporation that is the representative director of the corporation, committed the above mentioned crimes ① in relation to the business of the corporation, and Kim Jong-ho, a corporation that is the representative director of the corporation, committed the above crimes ② in relation to the business of the corporation. Upon examining evidence based on the records, the court below's above measures are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as set forth below in the following process.

1. Grounds of appeal as to the number of attorneys-at-law, Dong Kim-hee, and post-permanent condominiums admission fees

The appeal is to be raised on the premise that a condominium has only a member with a right to use facilities and a right to use facilities and a member with only a right to use facilities, on the ground that a condominium has only a member with a right to use facilities and a right to use facilities, and that a condominium has violated the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles.

However, if the evidence of the court below was collected, it was found that the construction and sale of the building of the over-the-counter condominiums with the reputation of the Nam-Pacific Complex was made fast and that the out-of-sale type exceeded ten billion won, Defendant Kim Jong-chul established new terms and conditions as a membership fee in addition to the sale price, urged the members who concluded the sale contract under the new terms and conditions to renew the contract, and requested them to refund after 30 years since the purchase price under the old terms and conditions, it is a debt which can be returned to the head of the sales fund office to deduct the sale price from the new terms and conditions and reduce the sales price, and it was recognized that there was a separate member of the corporation tax and special surtax for 1982 as a result of the report on the corporate tax and special surtax for 1982, and even under the new terms and conditions, there was no clear provision on the purchase price and sale price payment from the off-of-the-counter condominiums with the members under the new terms and conditions, but there was no provision on the above establishment and sale price order of the members.

2. The grounds of appeal as to the cost of the incomplete construction work by the same defense counsel

In order to calculate the tax base of corporate tax, etc. for the year 1982 of the defendant South-Pacific Ocean, the sales price of the condominiums completed and sold in that year shall be the sales price, and sales profit and loss shall be calculated by deducting the corresponding construction cost, etc. from the sales profit and loss in each business year by a domestic corporation shall be the business year to which the date of delivery of the goods, products, or other products belongs. Since it is obvious in light of the provisions of the main sentence of Article 17(2) of the Corporate Tax Act that the domestic corporation's sales profit and loss from the sales of the goods, products, or other products shall be the business year to which the date of delivery belongs, it shall be the business year to which the domestic corporation belongs. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence in the process of establishing the facts that the remaining-Pacific Partnership Co., Ltd. was included in the same (E) through (A) or (D) sales revenue and loss from the sale of the goods, products, or other products.

The issue is that Defendant Nam-Pacific Leisure Co., Ltd. and the Geum River Development Co., Ltd. are affiliates of the Franchisive Group, each of which is the representative director of the defendant Kim Jong-ho, and the construction of this case was directly executed by the Construction Headquarters within the group, and there was no fact that the two companies did not prepare a contract for construction, and the construction was executed without construction specifications, and the construction was divided by each building, etc., and there was no fact that the construction was settled accordingly. However, the first and second construction contracts kept by the Geum River Development Co., Ltd. are merely a contract in the form that is prepared for reporting to the Construction Association in accordance with the limit of construction revenue of the company, and it cannot be viewed as a construction consistent with the facts in this contract. However, the court below criticizes the violation of the rules of evidence, but the defendant Nam Nam-Pacific Leisure Development Co., Ltd. is an independent corporation established for the purpose of the construction sale of the tourism and recreation facility condominium, and even if it belongs to the same reputation group and Kim Jong-ho as its representative director, it does not clearly accept the facts.

3. If evidence is collected from the court below at the time of the first instance based on the records as to the price for the purchase of office fixtures and fixtures of the same defense counsel, etc., the price for the collection of the instant house fixtures and fixtures is cost for the purchase of office fixtures and fixtures kept in F. A. or D. under the former terms and conditions, which are the cost for the purchase of office fixtures and fixtures and fixtures sold in F.A. or D. under the former terms and conditions, but in light of the provisions of the former terms and conditions, if such facilities were damaged, the members shall compensate for them and if such facilities were damaged, the company shall be held responsible for them. The defendant company shall be provided with an advertisement slogan, etc., and if they were 18 square meters, 36 square meters and bedclothes were purchased at 18 square meters, 36 square meters and more, and the company shall be provided with additional charges for the purchase of office fixtures and fixtures, etc., and it shall not be found that they were installed for the purpose of management of such fixtures and fixtures, etc., 1982., 360., 197 square meters.

4. The grounds of appeal as to the design cost by the same defense counsel

In light of the records, if evidence of the court below was collected at the time of the trial below, it was entered in the Industrial Building Research Institute under the same reputation group in 1982 that the defendant Nam-Pacific Ocean Co., Ltd. paid 96,930,000 won as the design cost of various buildings. The construction cost of the company's assets account is 56,700,000 won as the design cost of the company's reputation-based condominium (C), D) and D (D) and the above research institute claimed payment of the above defendant company on July 1, 1982, but the above research institute did not know that the non-paid design cost was revoked as of December 31, 1982, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no other error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fact that the tax evasion report was cancelled since the head of the company's assets were seized at the prosecutor's office, and there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fact that the above tax evasion report was cancelled as the tax evasion report's of 1219.

5. The grounds of appeal as to wages of the same defense counsel, etc.

Examining the evidence of the court below based on the case records, it can be recognized that Defendant Geum River Development Corporation prepared a double statement of wages and included 14,793,800 won which did not have any fact of payment by preparing a false wage ledger in double entries, and evaded corporate tax and defense tax related thereto. The issue is that Defendant Company's wage contract was made by means of construction work and construction work area was located far away from city or authorization and traffic inconvenience. As employment workers want 24 hours work, it was jointly employed by Defendant Company and contractor and paid wages for each hour. Thus, it was erroneous in the original adjudication that found Defendant Defendant as guilty of the facts charged only without disclosing such circumstance, or that time employment was 24 hours and so there is no reason to prove that there was no reason to prove such facts of appeal.

3. As to the violation of the Building Act, the Building Act, the Tourism Act, the Natural Parks Act, the Forestry Act, etc. by Defendant Kim Jong-ho, the South Pacific Leisure Complex, etc., the attorney Lee Young-hee's ground of appeal on the same violation, and the above ground of appeal by the above attorney Lee Jong-young as to

In light of the gist of the grounds of appeal, the fact that there was an offense such as the written indictment on the construction of the defendant, etc., the Tourism Business Act, the Natural Parks Act, and the Forestry Act as well as the written indictment on the violation of the Act on the Construction of the defendant, etc., and each written indictment executed by the Flame Group, each of the construction headquarters in the group, including the building headquarters planned, managed, supervised, and under its control, the construction of the site offices in each region, such as snow, flag, glag, glag, and glag, shall be conducted under the responsibility of the head of the office of the group president and the construction headquarters, the Kim Jong-ho, the head of the construction headquarters, and the director's office, the defendant Kim Jong-ho, who is a defendant Kim-ho, did not know of the specific construction defects, and each region's tourism and recreation site is a national business of the related agencies, and even if there was no prior approval, design change, inspection, etc., it cannot be said that there was a violation of the rules of evidence establishment of law.

Although the perception of illegality does not necessarily mean that it is clear, first, from the viewpoint of the intentional theory on the perception of illegality, which is an element of responsibility, the recognition of illegality refers to intentional intent. In this case, there is no evidence to see that the defendant did not know it about the defects in the construction of various construction works of this case, and if the court below collected evidence based on the records of this case from the perspective of fact-finding, the so-called Fame Group, which is a punishment for projects within a period of time under the Criminal Code, such as the deduction of so-called corporate funds created by the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch through the branch of the Korean Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., the so-called Fame Group, which is a punishment for such projects, cannot be viewed as being erroneous or unreasonable in light of the fact that the whole operation of tourist amusement facilities, such as condominium, etc., was conducted by the defendant's exclusive crossing, and there is no reason to see that the perception of illegality as a responsible element of a building cannot be viewed as being erroneous or unreasonable in light of social norms, and thus it cannot be viewed that it cannot be justified.

4. The ground of appeal by the above defense counsel as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act by Defendant Kim Jong-ho

When collecting evidence at the original trial based on the records of the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime at the time of the original trial unless the defendant intentionally issues 12 copies of the number of shares per unit at the time of original trial, and 27,694,000,000 won per face value, and does not pay for the termination of the contract for current transactions. The arguments of this case are as follows: (a) the bonds of this case, etc. which the defendant Kim Dong-dong branch of the Korean Commercial Bank established through the counter of the beneficiary branch of the Korean Commercial Bank; (b) the defendant borrowed money of 106,60,000,000 won in total as collateral; (c) the defendant's total face value of the checks issued as collateral, which is 13,00,000,000 won or more; (d) the representative director at the name of the defendant, the South Pacific Development Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the representative director at the name of Hyundai Tourism Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., who was charged with the above bonds issued for the above purpose of criminal punishment.

However, there is no ground to believe that the check in this case is not a check under the Control of Illegal Check Control Act solely for the reason that the check in this case is not a check under the Control of Illegal Check Control Act. Since the Illegal Check Control Act punishs the issuer of a check which issued a check with no par value or a deposit shortage, if the check was presented on that date but no payment was made, the issuer of the check cannot be exempted from the charge of violating the Control of Illegal Check Control Act, and it was presented with the knowledge that the check holder would not trade the check or receive the check due to the shortage of deposit, and therefore, it cannot be said that the check in this case was settled due to any reason not attributable to the issuer of the check. Even if the bill in this case was indicted on the ground that the preservation order under the Company Reorganization Act was put into the object of a preservative measure under the Company Reorganization Act, it is due to the law for which payment is suspended except for the specific debt of the company requesting the reorganization, and therefore there is no legal ground for appeal to the court below.

5. Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

When collecting evidence at the time of the original trial based on the records of the original trial, it shall be sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged in the crime of occupational embezzlement, and there is no reason to discuss the facts in the process leading to such fact-finding by the original trial, and there is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no reason to conclude that there is no complaint in the establishment of the facts charged, regardless of the amount of punishment on which the defendant is a minor at the time of the crime and it is difficult to expect legitimate business performance in the personal banking work experience.

6. The offering of bribe to Defendant 1, 2, etc. and the offering of bribe to the same Kim Jong-chul

1. The grounds of appeal as to the Lee Jong-won, Lee Jae-chul, Dong Jae-chul, Dong Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and Defendant 2's failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, omission of judgment

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below collected evidences and held Defendant 1 as the Minister of Construction and Transportation from March 10, 1981 to May 22, 1982, and held office for land transportation, aviation, maritime affairs and tourism, and held office as the president who is an officer of the Korea Trade Promotion Corporation from June 9 to August 27, 1983.

① On June 1981, 1981, the first ten million won cashier’s checks provided by the Defendant’s secretary Nonindicted 1 through his secretary Nonindicted 1 to the effect that Dong Kim Jong-ho, the president of the Flag Group of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, approved the business plan of the golf course of the Flag, which is expected to be constructed, to the Seocho-si, the chairman of the Flag Group, and changed the support for the various projects promoted by the Flag Group in the future;

② 10 million U.S. dollars 10,00 (gold 6,951,800 won) provided through Nonindicted Party 1 to the same effect at the same place as the early 10.10 billion Won in the same year;

③ On January 1, 1982, at the same place as the early police officer of the Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-ho approved the business plan of the above Franchisium golf club at the same place, and the amount equivalent to KRW 10,000,000,000,000, which is provided through Nonindicted Party 1, to the effect that the approval of the plan for the creation of a comprehensive tourism and recreation site for the Yangmpia, which is scheduled to be constructed at the time, is changed to continuously provide support for the same.

④ At the same time, around March of the same year, at the same time and at the same time, the sum of KRW 11,917,600 per golf club membership price equivalent to the amount equivalent to KRW 7,717,600 at the market price per one unit of the 36th unit of the right to sell reputation-based condominium 36 square meters provided through Nonindicted 1 via the same purport and KRW 11,917,600 at the market price per one golf club;

⑤ At the same place on the same month, 1 million won per 20 million won cashier’s checks provided through Nonindicted 1 for the same purpose at the same time and at the same place on the same month.

6. At the president of the Korea Trade Promotion Corporation located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council on June 6 of the same year, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall actively support the above affairs related to the Franchising Group at the office of the Minister of Construction and Transportation at the time of his/her employment in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with 20 million won cashier's checks of KRW 20,000,000, which are provided through Nonindicted 1.

received and received a bribe equivalent to 81,869,400 won in total in respect of its duties;

Defendant 2, while serving as the Director General of the National Land Planning Bureau from June 21, 1979 to April 8, 1983, was performing his duties such as review of plans concerning the public notice of tourism and recreation areas, gender proposals, reports and consultation with relevant ministries and agencies, consultation with relevant ministries and agencies, and other plans for utilization of national territory;

① At the Director General of the National Land Planning Division around August 1981, 1981, the number of 1 million won cashier’s checks, five million won per five million won per five million won, provided to the purport that the Dong Kim Jong-ho may be publicly announced as tourism recreation district for the houses, fields, etc. in the Gyeonggi-gu, the Gyeonggi-gu, the Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, the purchase of which was conducted by Dong Kim Jong-ho, and that it would provide active support in all the projects promoted by the Fa

② At the same time, around December of the same year, 20 million won per 20,000 won cashier’s checks provided to the same purpose at the same place as Dong Kim Jae-ho;

③ From the land indicated in the above paragraph “A” at the same place on February 1982, 1982, the case is that it is possible to announce 6.2 square kilometers from among the land indicated in the above paragraph “A” as tourism and resort districts, and the case is that it is intended to request continued support, such as the additional publication of the tourism and resort district on the remaining land, and that it is equivalent to 4,200,000 won at one golf membership price per one unit;

(4) 1 million won per five million won cashier's checks provided to the same purpose at the same place in the same time and around August of the same year,

(5) 10 million won cashier's checks provided to the same purpose at the same place on or around December of the same year, and 10 million won per 10 million won cashier's checks provided to the same purpose;

6. On March 1, 1983, a bribe equivalent to KRW 53,702,00, the total value of which is 53,702,00 won is received in relation to the duties, which is provided for the purpose of changing the case and continuous active support to tourism and resort districts, from among the land described in the above paragraph (a) at the same place, to make an additional public notice of 6.74 square kilometers in a 6.74 square kilometer in a tourism and resort district.

Defendant Kim Jong-chul had a view in interpreting the laws and regulations as to the public notice of tourism and recreation area and approval of a business plan, building permission, etc. in the name of a company affiliated with a reputation group such as Co., Ltd., Nam-Pacific Leisure Complex, Geum River Development Co., Ltd., which makes it difficult for him to implement the project in the name of a company affiliated with such a reputation group as Co., Ltd., Nam-Pacific Leisure Complex, and Geum River Development Co., Ltd. to provide a bribe to the Minister of Justice, a person in charge of important affairs, and other public officials in charge of the affairs,

① Defendant 1, who had been employed as the president of the Korea Transportation and the Korea Trade Promotion Corporation at the time and six times before and after each of the above dates and places, at each of the above dates and places, equivalent to KRW 60 million, KRW 3 million, US$ 10,951,800, KRW 3600, KRW 3600, KRW 11,917,600, KRW 869,400, total amount of 11,917, KRW 600, and KRW 81,869,40, and KRW 400, in each of golf membership membership through Nonindicted Party 1’s secretary, for the purpose of the entry in the same paragraph;

② At the time and at the same time and place as above, Defendant 2, as the Director General of the National Land Planning and Utilization Bureau at the time and six times before and after a tourism and recreation area, offered cash checks equivalent to KRW 40 million for the purposes stated in the same paragraph, which are KRW 36,00,000,000 in total, including reputation-based condominiums 36,00 and reputation-based sales rights and reputation-based membership rights, and KRW 53,702,00,000 in total, which are equivalent to KRW 11,917,60,000 in the market price, to the purport of the same paragraph. In light of the evidence found in the records, the court below’s fact-finding is justified and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts,

(B) In light of the record of first instance, no materials may be produced to suspect the voluntariness or credibility of the statement in the statement of the accused, etc., witness, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, etc. at the prosecution or in the statement of the witness examination protocol of Nonindicted 1 (examination of witness pursuant to Article 221-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

The issue is that the defendant's wife or his secretary's testimony unfavorable to the defendant belongs to the empirical precedent, or it is thought that the defendant gives up his summons such as the witness 1, 2, and the fixed number of gates, etc. that he would avoid causing any more water and make any responsibility independently, or he denies the discretion and reliability of these statements on the ground that the defendant's statement in the defendant Kim Jae is not consistent by making a change of reversal several times during the process of going through the court of first instance, etc., the prosecutor's office of the first instance, etc., but such circumstance alone cannot be rejected that the defendant's statement consistent with the facts charged, such as the defendant and the non-indicted 1, 2, etc., should not

The statement (or document) made (or document) under particularly reliable circumstances concerning the hearsay rule of the Criminal Procedure Act is a true fact when it is so-called a provision concerning the circumstantial guarantee of credibility, and when the defendant voluntarily makes a statement contrary to the benefit of the defendant, it is true. Therefore, it is not reasonable that the defendant denies the facts charged in the court, and there is no logic that the confession at the prosecution or the police should be denied in the court because the confession at the court or the police can be established in the city, and that the confession at the court or the police can be denied in the court because it is the direct principle of the court-oriented trial, and there is no logic that only the statement at the court can be trusted in the law of evidence and that the statement at the investigation agency

Since the acknowledgement of facts must be based on evidence, and the probative value of evidence is based on the free evaluation of evidence by the judge, the determination of evidence and the acknowledgement of facts thereby belong to the discretionary power of the judge of the fact-finding court, which is not contrary to logical and empirical rules, so such a theory of free evaluation of evidence, and it is clear that it is without reason because it is merely ging the principle of free evaluation of evidence and imposing the legal principle of evidence.

(C) The purport of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act is as follows: (a) if there is a reason to suspect that the confession of the defendant does not have been made voluntarily by means of adviser, assault, threat, unreasonable prolonged detention of body, deception, deception, or other means, even though there is no causal relationship between the confession and the related party that caused the confession, the confession is inadmissible, and its admissibility is not denied only when it is acknowledged that the confession is not voluntary; and (b) the confession is not admitted to the fact that there is no voluntartariness. However, the reason why it is not voluntary statement under Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act is insufficient for the mere fact that there is no voluntariness, and it is insufficient for the judge to consider specific facts to suspect that there is considerable reason for the existence of voluntartariness of confession, and accordingly, the burden of proof is to be returned to the prosecution officer only when there is a reasonable and considerable doubt about the voluntariness of confession, and there is no reason to suspect voluntariness in the confession.

(D) In a case where a judicial police officer, in the course of investigating a suspect, had the suspect submit the statement of the suspect that should be recorded in the suspect interrogation protocol under Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the form of a written statement, the admissibility of evidence of the above written statement shall be determined in accordance with Article 312(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as in the interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agency other than the prosecutor, as in the same manner as in the interrogation protocol prepared by investigation agency, and rather than in accordance with the main sentence of Article 313(1) of the same Act, it shall be decided in accordance with the precedents of party members (see Supreme Court Decision

In light of the above, the court below's decision rejected the defendant 2's appeal that denies the admissibility of a written statement based on its fact-finding data by his defense counsel, etc., and the court below's decision was just and there was no error of law as pointed out in the court below's argument in the process of fact-finding. If an investigative agency other than the public prosecutor loaned the form of a written statement to prepare an interrogation protocol, and let the defendant prepare it, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be admitted as evidence by denying its contents. However, the facts charged against the defendant are proved to have been admitted as evidence without any deliberation and determination as to the preparation process and admissibility of evidence. However, according to the case records, it is sufficient to prove that the facts charged against the defendant are proved by the court below's evidence other than this written statement, and such error of law is not affected by the decision of the court below. Thus, it is not a ground to reverse the judgment of the court below.

(E) The legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society in which the non-purchase of the act of duties is directly protected. Therefore, it is concluded that the bribery does not prevent the existence of a compulsory violation, the existence of a solicitation, and the case of receiving it after the execution of duties.

Therefore, the relationship with the duties and the scope of duties in the crime of bribery should be understood from this point of view as the scope of duties different from the duties determined by the authority of each administrative agency according to the purport of ensuring the fairness of the duties. Therefore, not only the duties prescribed by the law but also the duties related to the duties in the past or in the future, and even if the duties are not actually performed through the division of duties, the duties of the public official, such as duties belonging to the general authority under the law, shall be deemed as duties in the crime of bribery.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, Defendant 1 received a bribe to the effect that Defendant 1, the president of the Flag group, took charge of the affairs related to land transportation, aviation, maritime affairs and tourism, provided and received from Defendant 1, the president of the Flag Kim Jong-ho to actively support various projects such as the construction, operation, etc. of tourist amusement facilities promoted by the Flag group, including the approval of the business plan for tourist amusement facilities, and the construction, operation, etc. of tourist amusement facilities promoted by the Flag group. Defendant 2, while in office as the director general of the National Land Planning Bureau of the Construction Department, has been in office as the director general of the Construction Division, has deliberated on the plan for the public notice of tourism and recreation area, has been engaged in consultation with the relevant ministries, and has been engaged in other functions such as national land utilization, plan, etc., so that the above Kim Jong-ho may be announced as tourism and recreation area for the purpose of changing active support to various projects recommended by the Flag group, or has received the above land as tourism and recreation area.

2. Grounds of appeal on misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection by attorneys Lee Jae-chul

The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the crime of prosecution against the defendant and collected the amount equivalent to the amount by converting the right to sell condominiums and golf membership fees that the defendant received from the defendant Kim Jong-ho into the price. One of the above right to sell condominiums and memberships is infinite, but as it was confiscated by the prosecution at the office of Non-Indicted 1, the defendant's letter of visa, the collection of the equivalent amount

Article 134 of the Criminal Code intends to confiscate and confiscate money and valuables to be offered to a bribe or a bribe received by a third party or a person who knows the fact that it is impossible to confiscate, the value of such money and valuables is to be collected from the person who received the bribe. The right to sell condominiums and golf memberships, etc. are merely certificates proving the right to receive the bribe or the right as a member and they are not the right holder, and thus, they still continue to exist in property benefits because they are not extinguished even if they were to have lost the right to sell a certificate, or have been seized by an investigation agency. There is no reason of illegality in taking measures to collect the value of such money and valuables. There is no reason to dispute on the appeal.

3. Grounds of appeal on misapprehension of legal principles as to the bribery of Attorney Lee Jae-chul

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed the acceptance of bribe as stated in Section 1 (a) and (6) of Article 6-1 (a) of the above Act and applied Article 2-1 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 subparagraph 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the same Act.

(B) In applying Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act (the provisions of Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), the executive officers of government-managed enterprises shall be extended to apply the scope of the application of the bribery to the executive officers of government-managed enterprises who are not the original public officials (Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the scope of government-managed enterprises according to the delegation of the mother Act, Article 3 of the Act provides for the scope of the executive officers), and the provisions of Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act concerning the duties of the government-managed enterprises are established if the executive officers of the government-managed enterprises have committed the crimes under Articles 129 through 132 of the Criminal Act, and it is clear that the provisions of each Act and the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are applied to the government-managed enterprises, and the provisions of Article 129 through 132 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes apply to the above affairs of the government-managed Enterprises.

However, the facts of the acceptance of a bribe against the defendant are all charged as one crime, and the amount which the defendant accepted is deducted from the amount of the acceptance of a bribe of 10,000,000 won. (6) Even though 10,000,000 won in fact (2) 3,000,000 won in fact and 10,000 won in fact (2) 3,000,000 won in fact (3) 1,00,000 won in fact (4) 1,917,60 won in fact (5,000 won in fact) 61,869,000 won in fact, and the applicable provisions of this case are more than 61,869,000 won in fact, and it cannot be applied to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor of 10,000,000 won in fact and 61,869,000 won in fact and 129,00 won in fact).

7. Ground of appeal on Defendant 4’s misapprehension of legal principle

The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: although the defendant was in office as the head of the traffic department tourist facility or the leader of the guidance division, he received money and valuables from Nonindicted 3, the vice president of the company Facium, the vice president of the company Facium, and did not have received any solicitation from him nor did he do the work that he did not receive any solicitation, and the duties such as guidance, supervision, etc. of Facium are not delegated to each Mayor/Do Governor as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 8194, Jul. 20, 1976, which was prior to the date when the defendant received 500,000 won from Nonindicted 3.

However, the legal interest of bribery is the process of performing the duties and the trust of the society in which the non-purchase of the act of performance of duties is directly protected. Thus, the crime of bribery has already been revealed in Section 1 (e) of the above 6, and even if the guidance and supervision of the club was delegated to the Mayor/Do governor as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 8194 of July 20, 1976, the competent Minister shall direct and supervise the state administrative affairs delegated to the head of the local government. According to the decision of the court below, the defendant assisted the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and takes charge of the guidance and supervision of tourist facilities such as tourist hotels and golf clubs, so it is not reasonable to deny the relation with the defendant's duties. Accordingly, there is no reason to discuss the appeal.

8. Defendant 5’s ground of appeal

According to the records, if the court below collected evidence based on its findings of fact, it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the permission of tourist hotel construction, forest damage, etc. from July 1, 1981 to April 10, 1983, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above duties, since the defendant was issued a bribe from around 300,000 won to around 300,00 won to the point of view of regional development in the course of performing construction permission and forest damage permission, etc. of various facilities in the 300,00 won constructed on the land of about 300,00 won, in the first place of early April 10, 1982, which were provided to the same purpose, and the defendant did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above duties, and did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above duties at the place of early 20,000 won, which were provided to the same purpose.

The defendant was present at the Water Supply and Waterworks Expansion Council established from March 8, 1982 to March 9 of the same year at the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs from March 26 to April 3 of the same year, and received education from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the head of Si/Gun policy management team at the National Police Training Institute for Home Affairs established from March 26 to April 3 of the same year, and 4.27 of the same year, the Uniform Institute received unification security education at the Uniform Institute for Unification and was in the attendance at the Gangwon-do Office located in Chuncheon-si from April 25 to April 28 of the same year, and thus, the defendant was not in the Si/Gun room on the day when he received a bribe from Non-Indicted 4. However, since it is apparent that the date of receiving money and valuables determined by the court below was a policeman on April 26 of the same year, and it is not always consistent with the date that the defendant was in absence of a business trip, and it is not clear that the defendant's new appeal against the defendant was established as a legitimate ground for final appeal.

9. Each of the grounds of appeal by Defendant Kim Jong-ho, Dong Kim Dong-dong, and Defendant 4 as to the determination of punishment, as well as his original form, and the grounds of appeal by Defendant 4

1. Grounds of appeal against Defendant Kim Jong-ho, Dong Kim Dong-dong

In general, the determination of punishment should take into account the offender’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. as stipulated under Article 51 of the Criminal Act. However, in practice, the defendant’s maturity, including criminal records, etc., whether the defendant has dependents, including the defendant’s sex, growth process and present background, whether the defendant’s act is sufficiently familiar with his appearance, whether it is violent crime or property crime, the possibility of correction correction, and further, the increase from the defendant, etc., as both materials. The materials or conditions of sentencing include the motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be said that there are many other conditions except for the defendant’s motive, consequence, and circumstances after the crime. However, even if the motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime of occupational embezzlement of the defendant, etc. in this case, the determination of punishment heavier than that of the court below cannot be said to be sufficient.

Even though the motive's non-ethic and anti-sociality are excluded from the discussion, the crime of this case is closely planned, and a thorough examination of the amount of money embezzled over four years, thereby causing serious confusion in the economy of this country by causing damage to the financial community. However, there is no reason to consider the circumstances of the defendant, etc. in light of this.

Of course, the fact that the instant crime by the Defendant, etc. was committed by the bond broker or bond broker, the so-called deposit owner, and some of those frauds who are combling and spreading without any structural misconduct of a financial institution is acceptable. However, for any reason, the crime by the Defendant, etc. cannot be justified. Even if the instant crime was committed in combination with those who are so-called so-called deposit owner, it cannot be said that the crime by the Defendant, etc. is legitimate and illegal. This argument can be considered as a reason why the determination of punishment by the Defendant, etc. might be a more severe reason.

The issue is that the means and method cannot be justified due to Defendant Kim Jae-ho’s virtual knowledge, ability, and the result that the method and method cannot be achieved, and this result cannot be achieved with its knowledge and ability, and that this argument is a detention from the sediment of yellow flusity, which has been spreaded to the general public, and that it was achieved by Defendant. It is merely a flusent punishment, which means that the crime of this case is deemed to be committed, and that the fact that Defendant et al. does not meet and that it has a large degree of outcome is larger than that of the crime of this case. Accordingly, it can be considered when Defendant et al. al. takes this intention into account only when she takes part in this context.

Therefore, the appeal to the effect that the amount of punishment imposed by the court below is heavy cannot be seen as being accepted by any appearance.

2. Defendant 4’s ground of appeal

In this case, where a suspended sentence of imprisonment for three years at the court of the first instance is sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for three years at the court of the first instance, and the appeal of the defendant is dismissed by the court of original instance, it is clear that the amount of the punishment cannot be considered as a legitimate ground of appeal pursuant to Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, there is no reason to view further.

Ultimately, the appeal by the defendant et al. is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, who are 55 days of confinement before the pronouncement of the judgment in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, shall be included in the imprisonment with prison labor as to the defendant Kim Jong-ho, Dong Kim Dong-dong, and the defendant 1 and 2.

In this judgment, all of the participating judges' opinions were consistent.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)