The legality of the removal disposition against the public official of the military office who receives 200,000 won under the pretext that the planned river aggregate extraction area will be published.

If the plaintiff, who was engaged in the business of collecting river aggregates in the construction and management of the military office, was requested by the non-indicted person to make a public announcement of the planned river extraction area from the non-indicted person, and received KRW 200,000 under his/her pretext, the plaintiff cannot be the subject of the crime of accepting bribery under the Criminal Act, and even if the receipt and payment of the above amount cannot be established under the Criminal Act, the plaintiff's above act is a violation of Article 69 of the Local Public Officials Act and Article 2 (1) 6 (Violation of Duty of Integrity) of the Rules on the Disciplinary Punishment of Local Public Officials of the Republic of Korea, so the removal of the plaintiff by the defendant (the head of the complete Si/Gun) is legitimate.

Articles 53 and 69 of the Local Public Officials Act

Plaintiff

Head of Shinju Gun

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Gu45 delivered on January 17, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the evidence of the court below, the plaintiff can be found to have received a bribe of KRW 200,00 from the non-party under the pretext of allowing the non-party to receive a public notice of the scheduled river extraction permission area belonging to the duties of the Governor of the Governor of the Governor of the Governor of the Governor of the Province at around 11:00 on the date of December 1981 and at the request of the non-party for the public notice of the scheduled river extraction area for 82 years since he tried to extract river from the non-party during his work in the construction and management department of the Governor of the Governor of the Republic of Korea from November 11, 1981 and after working in the same farmland area from the non-party during his work, he can be found to have received a bribe of KRW 20,00 from the non-party under the pretext of allowing the non-party to obtain a public notice of the removal of KRW 20,000 from the non-party's planned river extraction area under the pretext of the law. Thus, even if the plaintiff received a public notice of bribery from the above 2000.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)