[1] The meaning of the duty in the crime of bribery and the benefit which is the content of the bribe

[2] Whether the crime of bribery is established in a case where a person who has the right of evaluation of the first promotion in the military has had a person eligible for promotion under his/her bank loan in relation to the evaluation work, and the person jointly and severally

[1] The legal interest of the crime of bribery is the fairness in the performance of duties and the impossibility of purchasing duties. Thus, the crime of bribery does not cover the existence of a breach of duty and a solicitation, etc., and therefore includes not only acts closely related to or in the past, but also acts closely related to or related to duties, or acts of duties and duties that may assist or affect the decision-making authority, and the profits which are the contents of a bribe include not only money, goods, and other property interests, but all tangible and intangible profits that are sufficient to meet the demand of people.

[2] The act of having a person who has the right to conduct the first promotion in the Gun jointly and severally with his bank loans in relation to the evaluation work constitutes the act of receiving a bribe which is a profit in relation to his duties.

[1] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 78Do1793 delivered on October 10, 1979 (Gong1979, 12283), Supreme Court Decision 94Do993 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2678), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3458), Supreme Court Decision 94Do3022 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 703 delivered on November 15, 196), Supreme Court Decision 95Do114 delivered on November 15, 196 (Gong197, 131), Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Do5309 delivered on September 29, 205 (Gong1997, 197Do13059 delivered on September 25, 209)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jae-ju

High Court Decision 200No63 Decided August 29, 2000

The appeal is dismissed.

Each ground of appeal by the defendant and public defender shall be examined together.

It is just that the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of bribery of this case against the defendant in comparison with the employment evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below.

The court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or found facts erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence.

The legal interest of bribery is the fairness of performing duties and the impossibility of purchasing duties. Accordingly, bribery does not prevent the existence of breach of duty and solicitation. Therefore, not only acts closely related to or in the past, but also acts closely related to or in practice and duties that may assist or affect the decision-making authority (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do114 delivered on November 15, 1996). Benefits which are the contents of bribe include not only money, goods, or other property interests, but all tangible and intangible profits which are sufficient to meet the demand of people (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 195).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the act of the defendant, who is the person holding the first step rating rating, caused the non-indicted to stand a joint and several surety for the defendant's bank loans in relation to his duties constitutes a bribe which is a profit-making bribe in relation to his duties.

We cannot accept the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)