Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

Kim, Public Officials

Housing Yangcheon-gu Seoul

In the event that the detention house is rescheduled)

Reference domicile Chungcheong District;

Defendant

Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Lee Jae-hwan and Nowon-in

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No1860 Decided October 23, 2009

January 14, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A public official's acceptance, demand, or promise of a bribe in connection with the referral of matters belonging to the duties of another public official by taking advantage of his/her status is the requirement for the establishment of a bribe. In this context, the term "public official" cannot be deemed as a case where he/she uses a private relationship such as friendship, kinship, etc., but it constitutes a case where a public official who is legally or substantially affected by the handling of affairs handled by another public official uses his/her status, and there is no special relationship such as a relationship, cooperative relationship, supervisory authority, etc. among them, and it does not necessarily require a special relationship, such as a relationship, cooperative relationship, and supervisory authority." It does not necessarily mean that a public official's act of arranging matters belonging to the duties of another public official is exempted from what belongs to the duties of the public official, or it does not necessarily require approval authority

4. In addition, when the check received as a bribe was deposited in a bank, the deposit constitutes a disposal act of the bribe and even if the consignee finds money equivalent to its face value and returned it to the receiver, it cannot be deemed as a return of the bribe itself. Thus, in such a case, the equivalent amount shall be additionally collected from the consignee (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do2461, Apr. 14, 1970, etc.). The self-denunciation refers to a voluntarily reporting the criminal act to the government agency with the responsibility to investigate, and an expression of intent to seek such disposition, and a statement in response to questions or investigations conducted by the investigation agency is a confession, and it does not constitute a self-recept (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do962, Aug. 14, 1992, etc.).

In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance and the court below, the court below found that Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 132 of the Criminal Act apply to the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below and collected 50 million won from the defendant, and recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, etc., and provided a letter of self-denunciation and recognized the criminal facts after the defendant denied the criminal facts at the time of the investigation as an internal investigation as an internal investigation and submitted the letter of self-denunciation and recognized the criminal facts, it shall not be deemed to be an excessive confession. In light of the above legal principles and records

There is no illegality in law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Ahn Dai-hee

Justices Shin Young-chul