(a) Return of the accepted bribe and the nature of the crime of acceptance of bribe;

(b) Where the amount of bribe received is refunded three months or more and additional collection is made;

A. If a bribe is received as a part of the intent to acquire it, it shall not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery even if it was returned later.

B. In a case where an amount equivalent to two million won of a bribe received at the beginning of June 1985 was deposited online in the sender’s bank account and returned online on September 3, 1985, the measures that collected the equivalent amount from the consignee are lawful, since it is difficult to view that two million won of the returned amount was the money received as a bribe in light of the time of return, etc.

A. Article 129 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do113 Decided March 22, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 66Do1666 Decided January 24, 1967; Supreme Court Decision 69Do2461 Decided April 14, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 78Do1844 Decided September 12, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 83Do1313 Decided December 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Do2871 Decided February 14, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Do1350 Decided September 10, 1985

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Dongyang General Law Firm, Attorneys Cho Hun-tae (Korean National Assembly on Defendant 1)

Gwangju High Court Decision 86No83 delivered on August 29, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, two million won of the money received by the defendant from the non-indicted person can be sufficiently recognized, and the criminal facts of the decision (C) that the defendant received as a bribe in response to the illegal solicitation as stated in its reasoning in relation to his duties cannot be viewed as having taken advantage of the lending relationship like the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the process of fact-finding and the preparation of evidence, and therefore there is no

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the facts constituting the crime of the accepted bribery are recognized, and there is no error of finding a wrong fact due to a mistake in the preparation of evidence. Moreover, if a bribe is received as a group of intent to acquire it, even if it was returned later, it does not affect the establishment of the accepted bribery, so the defendant's act does not constitute the crime of bribery by returning all the money received as the theory, and in light of the records, it is difficult to view that the defendant returned the received bribe itself, and there is no error of law in the court below's measure that collected 90,000 won from the defendant, which is equivalent to the amount of the accepted bribery.

3. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel

The fact that the defendant deposited online and returned the amount equivalent to two million won of the bribe received from the non-indicted in June 1985 from the non-indicted person to the non-indicted person's bank account in September 3, 1985 is clear in light of the relevant evidence shown in the record.

However, in light of the time of the return and all the details of the return revealed in the record, it is difficult to recognize that two million won (2 million won) the Defendant returned was the money received as a bribe, and the court below's collection of the equivalent amount is legitimate, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, confiscation, and collection of additional money, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the law regarding the mistake of facts against the rules of evidence, confiscation, and collection

4. Ultimately, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)