A. The meaning of "duty" in the crime of bribery

(b) Whether the crime of acceptance of bribe is established where a court receives money along with a request to reduce the sentence, by a participating injection in the court;

A. In the crime of bribery, the term "duty" includes not only the duties under the control of law, but also the quasi-feasible acts closely related to the duties, or the duties under the jurisdiction or the duties under the jurisdiction or the duties under the jurisdiction of the decision-making authority and the duties under the control or influence of the public official.

B. Even if the court’s taking part in the trial record states the contents of the deliberation of the matters concerning sentencing in the trial, it cannot be said that the sentencing of the criminal case is closely related to the duties of the taking part in the taking part in the trial, and thus, even if the taking part in the trial accepted money and valuables together with the solicitation that the taking part in the trial reduces the sentence, it cannot be deemed the subject of

Article 129 of the Criminal Act, Article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4289Do235 delivered on December 28, 1956, Supreme Court Decision 65Do604 Delivered on November 22, 1966

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Sk-soo et al.

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No5803 delivered on February 27, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant received a bribe of 300,000 won and received a bribe in connection with his duties under the pretext of the solicitation from the non-indicted 2, who worked as the judge's participation in the Daejeon District Court from October 20, 1975 to October 18, 1977, on the ground that the defendant worked as the judge's participation in the court of Daejeon District Court's 2nd Kim Jong-dong at the time of his service as the above participation in the court of Grade 10, who was the defendant's participation in the court of Grade 10,000 won, in a long-distance restaurant where the defendant 10, who is the non-indicted 1's mother of the above criminal defendant 1, who was distributed the above criminal defendant 2 alone at the time of his participation in the court of Grade 10, who was the victim of the crime of acceptance of bribe.

The term "duty" in the crime of acceptance of bribery includes quasi-official act or custom, act of actual jurisdiction (see Supreme Court Decision 65Do604, Nov. 22, 1966) and act of assisting or affecting the decision-making authority (see Supreme Court Decision 4289Do235, Dec. 28, 1956).

However, the court below's decision that the defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe is just and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, since the defendant's participation in the public trial is obvious that preparing the protocol of public trial in accordance with Article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Act is the principal duty of preparing the protocol of public trial, and the criminal trial including the sentencing belongs to the authority of the court composed of judges or judges. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's participation in the public trial and the court's participation in the sentencing cannot assist or affect the sentencing of judges or the court by entering the contents of the deliberation process of the sentencing in the protocol of public trial and thereby it cannot be said that the sentencing of the criminal case is a part of the participating officials' participation in the public trial, and it cannot be said that it is closely related to the duties of the participating officials' participation in the criminal case.

2. Based on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below is justified to conclude that the record was examined that the defendant was unable to take such measures, and that the defendant did not have any intention to receive money or to obtain the above money, as the defendant did not have any intention to receive money, since the non-indicted 2, who tried to get a taxi by cutting in the train 300,000 won, was kept in the train, and it was inevitable to move back to the train as it was because it was impossible for him to return a son due to the rapid increase of the next hours, and it was impossible to do so. The judgment of the court below is justified to conclude that the court below did not adopt the opinion that it was impossible to conclude that the defendant did not have any intention to receive money or to obtain the above money, such as the theory of evidence selection, in the process of evidence preparation, which was completed in the large-scale restaurant in the management of non-indicted 2.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)