Whether waiver of the right to claim withdrawal of deposits constitutes return of a bribe

Where a person collects a cashier's check received as a bribe in cash and deposits in a bank in the name of his/her wife, even if his/her wife renounced the right to claim the withdrawal of deposits to the State, the amount of the cashier's check cannot be deemed to have returned the bribe itself.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

69Do2461 delivered on April 14, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 8455 delivered on April 14, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 18Da169 delivered on April 14, 197, Supreme Court Decision 134(8)1280 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74 high-liability725)

All appeals by Defendant 1 and by the Prosecutor against the Defendant, etc. are dismissed.

The summary of Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal of this case is as follows: first, the amount of money that the court below held by the court below as the defendant accepted was deposited in the subway Construction Headquarters as defect security money in obtaining continuous inspection of materials from Defendant 2, but it cannot be readily determined as a bribe in view of the process, date, and human relation between the defendant and the defendant. However, the court below acknowledged the defendant as a crime of acceptance of bribe, and it was erroneous in the misconception of facts due to the experience and violation of the rules of evidence, and the facts against the rules of evidence. Second, the court below borrowed only the money that the defendant received from the above defendant from the above defendant as it is, and deposited in the bank under the name of the non-party 1, and the money was confiscated after the seizure of the deposit passbook was made, and the length of the money reverted to the National Treasury. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collection of additional money from the defendant, which affected the judgment. Third, the court below’s decision of this case’s grounds for appeal against the defendant’s infringement of legal interests.

Therefore, the first point of appeal of Defendant 1 is examined by examining the first point of appeal in light of the records, and it is not erroneous as pointing out the facts constituting the crime of this case's bribery as judged by the court below, and even if examining the case records, there is no error as to the issue in the process of finding facts by the court below. Second, according to the records, the defendant collected cashier's checks that he had taken over two occasions from time to time in cash and gave them to Non-Party 1. Of them, it is recognized that the bank was fixed time in the name of Non-Party 1 (or KRW 1 million was lent to Non-Party 2) and that the deposit was not a disposal act even if it was lent to the bank in the name of the wife, and it cannot be viewed as a disposal act. Thus, even if the non-indicted 1 renounced his right to withdraw the above term deposit itself, if so, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's motive to collect the bribe after the judgment of the court below is inappropriate for the prosecutor to collect it from the defendant 1's own.

Therefore, each appeal filed by Defendant 1 and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)