Whether the mere acceptance of money and valuables constitutes acceptance of bribe with the intention to return money later (negative)

The term "receiving of a bribe" means receiving of money or goods with the intention of acquiring it, and it is merely receiving a group of money or goods with the intention of returning it after considering the future opportunity, it cannot be said to be a acceptance of a bribe.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Do2125 Decided June 12, 1979, 79Do1314 Decided July 10, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 84Do2082 Decided January 22, 1985

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Do-ju, and Do-won

Seoul High Court Decision 81No2765 delivered on November 19, 1982

The lower judgment on Defendant 1 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that Defendant 1, as the Director General of the Korea Transportation Agency, received KRW 50,000 as a gold 30,000,000 which was provided to the effect that Nonindicted 1, the representative director of the Dong branch, at a golf course located in the village located in the village of the early 10:00 on October 1, 1975, offered to the effect that T and 28 high-speed buses in Young-dong Highway were increased, and (2) on June 1, 1975, he received KRW 300,000 from Nonindicted 1 and received KRW 350,000 in total, which was provided from Nonindicted 1 to the above purport; (b) on April 2, 1975, the Minister of Transport and Transportation changed the rate of passenger passenger passenger transportation at the front passenger bus transportation station and the Incheon-U-U-U.S. business plan to 00,000,000.

2) However, in light of the evidence and records adopted by the court below, the defendant and the non-indicted 1 continued to maintain friendly relations since they came to know of 10 years in the course of performing their duties, and the non-indicted 1 was appointed as the representative director of the above corporation, which is the transportation company, on August 1974, when the defendant takes office as the above 50,000 won, and the defendant received 50,000 won money. However, if the above 1 reached the office of the transportation division at the time of the above time, the defendant and the non-indicted 1 paid 0,000 won money to the non-indicted 1's public official and the non-indicted 1 paid 0,000 won money to the non-indicted 1's public official and the non-indicted 1 paid 0,000 won money to the non-indicted 1's public official and the non-indicted 1's local government's public official and the defendant 1's local government's public official and the defendant 5's local government.

3) The following facts of the crime of the above A (2) were delivered to the defendant on a health care point, the above 300,000 won to the defendant's office. However, considering the evidence and the records adopted by the court below, the above 300,000 won was examined at the above date and time, even though the non-indicted 1 was used for the defendant's office and offered the bags containing money, he unilaterally refused to return the envelope to the consignee. Thus, the defendant, even though he did not contact with the local business trip, the non-indicted 1 went on the phone to return it, but the non-indicted 30,00 won was returned to the above defendant's office after 20,300 days, and the above money was returned to the non-indicted 10,000 won and the above money was returned to the defendant's office without the above 970,000 won's intention, it seems that the above money was returned to the above defendant's office without the above 197,000,00 won.

4) Furthermore, according to the records, the above facts constituting the crime of B, the defendant completely denies the fact that he received the same amount from the prosecution from the prosecution to the court of original trial. The court below acknowledged the above facts of the crime by the testimony of Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 2 of the first instance court and the witness before remanding the court of original trial before remand and Kim Mine-con, and other evidences cited by the reasoning of the court below are unrelated to

However, the testimony of Non-Indicted 2 at the court of first instance is consistent with the above criminal facts, but (1) the witness reversed the statement of the court of first instance before remanding the above criminal facts, and did not correspond to 500,000 won, such as the above criminal facts. However, when the investigation is conducted by an investigation agency, it is difficult to discover the fact of tax evasion, etc. if the investigation is long-term and there is a concern that if the company's account book is investigated, it is difficult to gather the suspect's opinion, and the witness stated that he made a false testimony at the court of first instance even after 8 days after the reversal statement (this witness prepared and submitted a statement consistent with the above criminal facts at the court of first instance before 8 days after the reversal statement, but again submitted a true statement of the above facts that corresponds to the above criminal facts at the court of first instance, and then, it is difficult to use the witness's testimony at the court of second instance or 50 days after the remand's statement that corresponds to the above criminal facts at the court of second instance (20 days after the remand statement).

5) Ultimately, the decision of the court below on Defendant 1 is justified, since it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the crime of bribery, nor did it mislead the fact-finding due to the violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

2. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the above defendant's criminal facts as 2-A (1), (3), and (4) based on the evidence of its judgment is just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as litigation, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence. The arguments are not acceptable as it merely criticizes the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court as to the preparation of evidence.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment on Defendant 1 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant 2’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju