A. Summary of the judgment on the evidence inconsistent with the facts constituting an offense (negative)

B. The meaning of "related to the duties" in the crime of bribery.

A. Inasmuch as evidence of conviction is based on positive evidence proving the facts constituting a crime, the court did not err by denying the evidence inconsistent with the facts constituting a crime, or by failing to explain the reasons therefor.

B. For the crime of bribery in Article 129 of the Criminal Code, the term "in relation to duties" includes not only the act of duties belonging to his authority, but also the act of actual processing in relation to his duties.

Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do1384 delivered on October 16, 1979, 76Do2858 delivered on October 17, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 78Do2710 Delivered on December 26, 1978

Defendant 1 and two others

Attorney Kim Jong-tae (Ap. against Defendant 1) (Ap.C. against Defendant 2)

Seoul High Court Decision 80No1630 delivered on January 9, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

75 days of detention pending this judgment shall be inserted in the original sentence of Defendant 1.

1. Defendant 1’s private election and state appointed defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

Even according to the records, it is not recognized that the statements of the above defendant at the prosecutor's office do not have been made arbitrarily in light of the circumstances and contents of the statements, and the contents of each part of the statements at the court of first instance and the court of original trial. In addition, considering the records, each evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below does not contain any errors in violation of the rules of evidence and in misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case. Furthermore, the evidence of conviction should be based on the positive evidence proving the facts that are a crime, and it is not necessary to determine through the negative evidence that is contrary to the facts of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 4292Ma802 delivered on January 29, 1960). Thus, it cannot be said that there is any error in the conclusion of the judgment or failing to explain the reasons for rejection of the evidence inconsistent with the criminal facts against the above defendant.

2. Defendant 3, state appointed defense counsel, and their grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the record, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to bribery and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

3. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

Even according to the record, the statements in the prosecutor's office of the above defendant or the person pointing out the arguments do not appear to have been made arbitrarily in favor of the reasons and contents of the statements, and other records are reviewed, and it does not appear that there is an unlawful reason, such as violation of the rules of evidence, against the rules of evidence, etc., in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, in relation to the crime of bribery under Article 129 of the Criminal Act, the term "related to duties" includes not only the act of duties belonging to his authority but also the act of actual handling in relation to his duties. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's principal act constitutes the crime of bribery based on the above purport is just and the judgment of the court below that the defendant's principal act constitutes the crime of bribery is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the lack of reason or the application of law, such as the assertion of the lawsuit.

4. Therefore, the Defendants’ appeals are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)