[1] In a case where an employee of an institution entrusted with the inspection of an electronic amusement machine under Article 41(2) of the former Public Health Act and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act delivers the certificate of confirmation of the inspection completion completion completion completion completion certificate to the owner of a computer game room business without confirming the completion of the inspection of a program installed in the institution, whether the act constitutes "unlawful act in the performance of duties" under Article 131(2) of the Criminal Act regardless of whether or not the matters to be indicated in

[2] In a case where a donation is recognized as a quid pro quo relationship with a job act, whether it constitutes a bribe under the pretext of a private law (affirmative)

[1] The certificate of confirmation of an electronic amusement machine is a certificate issued under the name of the National Computer Industry Federation of Korea with the content that the program installed in the electronic amusement machine is duly completed under Article 12-2 of the former Public Health Act (amended by Act No. 5654 of Jan. 21, 199), Articles 7-6 and 27 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 15-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and its function is to verify whether the program installed outside the electronic amusement machine is completed or not without directly opening the electronic amusement machine. Thus, the attachment is necessarily a violation of Article 41 (2) of the same Act, and Article 27 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and if an employee of the National Computer Industry Federation of Korea with the content that the program installed in the electronic amusement machine has not been completed, it does not constitute an act of issuing the certificate of confirmation of an electronic amusement machine to the employee of the National Computer Industry Federation of Korea without the completion of inspection of the program.

[2] Since a bribe refers to an illegal profit as a consideration for an act related to a duty, a gift as a mere private example without relation to a duty cannot be deemed a bribe. However, in a case where a quid pro quo relationship is acknowledged, a bribe cannot be denied even if it borrows a private legal example.

[1] Articles 12-2 and 41(2)4 and (3) of the former Public Health Act (amended by Act No. 5654, Jan. 21, 199); Articles 7-6 and 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Health Act; Article 15-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Public Health Act; Article 131(2) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 131(2) of the Criminal Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 83Do1499 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 860) Supreme Court Decision 96Do865 delivered on June 24, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2286) Supreme Court Decision 98Do3584 delivered on January 29, 199 (Gong199Sang, 414)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong Jong-tae

Busan High Court Decision 98No1005 delivered on January 7, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and his state appointed defense counsel shall also examine the grounds for appeal.

The certificate of confirmation of the inspection instrument is a certificate under the name of the National Computer Industry Federation of Korea, an incorporated association, that confirms that the program installed in the electronic amusement device has completed a lawful inspection under Article 12-2 of the former Public Health Act (amended by Act No. 5654 of Jan. 21, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 7-6 and Article 27 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 15-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and is a certificate under the name of the National Computer Industry Federation of Korea, which is an incorporated association, to ensure that the program installed in the electronic amusement device has a function to check the completion of the installed program without opening the electronic amusement device directly. Thus, the attachment must be done directly after checking the completion of the program installed in the electronic amusement device.

Therefore, if an employee of the Korea Computer Industry Federation entrusted with the inspection under Article 41(2) of the Act and Article 27(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act without confirming the completion of the inspection of a program installed in an electronic recreation organization, and issued without permission to the owner of the computer game room business, such act constitutes an act in violation of the official duties of an inspection institution and constitutes an act in violation of Article 41(3) of the Act and Article 131(2) of the Criminal Act, and as long as such an act violates his duties, it does not affect the establishment of a crime.

In addition, since a bribe refers to an illegal profit as a consideration for an act related to his/her duties, a gift as a mere private example without relation to his/her duties cannot be deemed a bribe. However, in cases where a quid pro quo relationship is acknowledged, a bribe cannot be denied even if it borrows the name of a private case.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is justified in finding that the defendant, who is the director of the Korea Computer Industry Federation and the branch president of the Korea Computer Industry Federation, delivered 50 copies of the check-up document confirmation certificate to the non-indicted who is the owner of the computer game room business without permission, and received 200,000 won as a case and received 20,000 won and received a bribe in the course of performing his duties, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds for appeal. The grounds for appeal by the

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)