Where several persons jointly or independently receive a bribe on several occasions, the method of collection as additional collection;

If a bribe received from Defendant A and B jointly from Defendant C is equivalent to KRW 1,540,00,00 and the bribe received from Defendant B alone is equivalent to KRW 300,00,000, which has already been consumed in the said bribe, and it becomes impossible to confiscate it, the equivalent value shall be additionally collected from Defendants, unless there are any special circumstances, for the portion of joint acceptance, and the equivalent value shall be additionally collected from Defendant B for the portion of sole acceptance.

Articles 134 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do2225 delivered on January 27, 1970 (Kakaddd 3841, 3842); Supreme Court Decision 18Do1279 delivered on April 1, 197; Decision No. 134(7)1; Decision No. 1279 delivered on January 27, 197; Decision No. 30(15)1

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 70Da29914, 45608)

(1) Of the judgment below, the part concerning Defendant 1 and 2 shall be reversed.

(2) Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months.

(3) Out of the detention days prior to the sentence of the lower judgment, 175 days for Defendant 1, and 170 days for Defendant 2 shall be included in the above principal sentence.

(4) The amount of KRW 770,000 from Defendant 1, and KRW 1,070,000 from Defendant 2 shall be collected respectively.

(5) The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 3 and the defendant is dismissed.

(1) First, the gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that the sentencing of the court below against the defendants is excessive and unfair in light of the circumstances, methods, and results of the crime of this case. Second, the summary of the grounds of appeal by the defendant 1 is that the defendant, as determined by the court below, was erroneous in the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of money or entertainment in connection with his duties, and even if it is not so, the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is excessive and unfair. Third, in full view of the grounds of appeal by the defendant 2 and his defense counsel, the defendant did not receive money or entertainment under the pretext of reducing inheritance tax from the above defendant 3 as at the time of original trial in collusion with the above defendant 1 and there was no discretion to adjust inheritance tax due to the nature of the defendant's duties, and thus, the court below's decision that the defendant's appeal against the defendant 1, the defendant 3, or the prosecutor's office or the defendant's family process did not err in the judgment of the court below because it did not mislead the defendant 3's the defendant's appeal and the defendant's family judgment.

(2) 그러므로 먼저 피고인 1, 2 및 피고인 2 변호인의 각 채증법칙위배 내지 사실오인의 주장에 관하여 아울러 보건대, 원심이 동 피고인들에 대한 유죄의 증거로 삼고 있는 여러 증거들을 기록에 의하여 보면 이들 증거는 어느 것이나 적법한 증거조사를 거친 증거능력이 있는 증거들로서 이들 증거에 의하면 원심이 판시한 동 피고인들에 대한 범죄사실을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있고 달리 기록을 샅샅히 살펴보아도 원심조처에 어떠한 위법이 있음을 찾아 볼 수 없으므로 이 점에 관한 논지는 모두 받아들이지 않는다.

Next, in light of the following facts as to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor, the defendants, and the two counsel, and in light of all the circumstances on the condition of sentencing as shown in the records, each principal sentence against the defendants 1 and 2, or each sentence imposed on the defendant 3, which was sentenced by the court below, shall not be deemed to be more appropriate and excessive. Furthermore, upon examining ex officio the records, the amount of the bribe received by the defendant 1 and 2 jointly from the defendant 3 is equivalent to 1,540,000 won, and the amount of the bribe received by the defendant 2 alone is equivalent to 3,00,000 won and cannot be forfeited since the bribe was already consumed by the defendant 2. Thus, in addition, the amount of the above defendant 1 and 2 shall be collected equally from the above defendants, unless there are special circumstances, and the amount of the above additional collection shall be collected from the defendant 1 to the above defendant 1,700,000 won, and the amount of the additional collection shall be collected from the defendant 1 and 2000.

(3) If so, in light of the above, it is clear that each appeal filed against the defendant and the non-indicted defendant against the defendant is without merit. Accordingly, the part concerning the defendant 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below concerning the defendant 1 and 2 shall not be reversed, and the judgment of the court below as to the same part

Criminal facts and evidence relations acknowledged by the trial court against the defendant 1 and 2 are the same as those of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, they are quoted as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 129 (1) (Article 30 of the Criminal Act) of the Criminal Act provides that Articles 129 (1) 1-1 and 2-1 of the judgment of the court below in the case of defendant 1's non-acceptance of the Act shall be as follows; Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 1-1 of the judgment of the court below among the judgment of the court below; Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 1-2 of the judgment of the court below shall be as follows; Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 129 (1) of the same Act provides that the defendants shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above defendants; Article 37 (1) of the same Act shall be subject to confiscation.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul