The requirements for acceptance of bribe under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

The acceptance of bribe by a public official provided for in Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a public official receives a bribe in connection with his/her duties, and it does not require any demand or promise to take a bribe separately.

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1039 Decided June 13, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the criminal facts that he received 13,00,000 won as a bribe from co-defendant in relation to his duties as stated in its reasoning, and there is no illegality in the process of collecting evidence through the fact-finding, and there is no ground to believe that the court below erred in finding the facts against the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. The crime of acceptance of bribe by a public official provided for in Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a public official receives a bribe in connection with his duties, and it does not require any demand or promise to accept a bribe separately, and since there was no fact that the defendant demanded or promised to demand a bribe to Co-defendant in the original judgment, it is nothing more than an independent opinion that the defendant's act of acceptance of a bribe does not constitute a crime under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act. Since it is obvious in the record that the receipt of a bribe by the defendant is returned to a person who has sustained a bribe, and it is obvious that the receipt of a bribe by the defendant would have consumed the money received, not the bribe itself, and return it ex post facto

The judgment of the court below does not contain any misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acceptance of bribe and collection.

3. Other grounds of appeal are not legitimate in light of the provisions of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant alleged that the sentence of imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) imposed on the defendant was contrary to the principle of equity compared with the sentence of a fine imposed on another co-defendant.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)