The case holding that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 129 of the Criminal Act, such as reasonable payment or improper payment, on the ground that entertainment or money received in the crime of bribery is a relation to the act of the bribery trustee's duty and does not clarify which influence it.

The fact that the accepted entertainment or money is not directly examined by the fact that the military police officer is in the position of the ledger is erroneous in recognizing that the accepted entertainment or money has not been directly examined.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

The first instance court Decision 68No826 delivered on February 24, 1969, such as the Army of the second instance and the Army of the second instance.

Of the original judgment, the guilty part is reversed;

The part of the case shall be remanded to the High Military Court of Justice in the Army.

The grounds for appeal by the Defendant and his defense counsel and the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel are examined as follows;

As to the defendant's case of embezzlement against the defendant Byung-il, his defense counsel, he received entertainment amounting to 5,280 won from 20 to 3 times before and after 3,00 won, and even though the defendant's receipt of 20,00 won from 2 and 4 to 3,00 won from 3,00 won was not in connection with the defendant's duty, the court of first instance recognized that the defendant received it in connection with the defendant's duty, or that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles under Article 129 of the Criminal Act, and that there was a misunderstanding of the facts, or a misunderstanding of the legal principles under Article 129 of the Criminal Act, it can be recognized that the defendant was a military judicial police officer of the military branch at the time of the above act, and the legal principles under Article 129 of the Criminal Act, which had been accepted by the police officer of the military branch from 20 to 3,000 won, were applied to the defendant's act of receiving and receiving it as a bribe from the military police officer of this case.

However, the case of embezzlement of the defendant against the non-indicted 1 is not examined as a police officer of the Military Law, and it is evident by the prosecutor's written indictment and the records of the way that the defendant's investigation was conducted in the military police corps, and the court below has a relation to the investigation of the above case and the defendant's duty, and it can be judged whether the defendant's acceptance of facts and receipt of money by clearly stating what influence the defendant's duty is related to the defendant's duty. However, the court below did not disclose this decision and applied Article 129 of the Criminal Act because the defendant's entertainment and receipt of money by the military judicial police officer who is in the military police officer in the position of the military police commander, who is in the position of the military police commander, received a bribe in connection with his duty, there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 129 of the Criminal Act or Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Therefore, the guilty portion of the original judgment is reversed, and the part of the case is remanded to the Military Court of First Instance, which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu