[1] In a case where a prosecutor or a court denies part of a crime after voluntarily attending an investigative agency and making a confession of a crime, whether the validity of self-determination ceases to exist (negative)

[2] The meaning of "the duties" under Article 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and the receipt of money and valuables from officers and employees of financial institutions

[3] In a case where the nature of money received by officers and employees of a financial institution as compensation for the act of duties and the nature of an act other than duties are indivisiblely combined, whether such money in full has the nature of compensation for the act of duties (affirmative)

[1] In a case where the defendant voluntarily appeared after summons by the prosecutor, and confessions the crime to the prosecutor, and thereby the validity of self-regulation under the Criminal Act takes place, even if he denies part of the crime in the prosecutor's office or the court, the validity of self-determination

[2] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes that "the officers and employees of a financial institution" are "related to all business affairs handled by the officers and employees of the financial institution accompanying their positions". If the officers and employees of the financial institution receive money and valuables or other benefits from the customers, it shall not be deemed that the customer in question has been paid the money and valuables or received from the officers and employees of the financial institution to the customer in question, and it shall not be deemed that there is no relation with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it can be clearly recognized that personal-friendly relations are caused by the need for school division.

[3] In case where the nature of money and valuables received by officers and employees of financial institutions under Article 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is indivisiblely combined with the nature of the consideration for the act other than the duty, the whole of it shall be considered to have the nature of the consideration for the act of duty inseparably, and the same shall also apply to the determination of the amount of money and valuables provided

[1] Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes / [3] Article 5 (1) and (4) of

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Do659 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1749), Supreme Court Decision 94Do619 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2675), Supreme Court Decision 94Do618 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 7399Ha, 1685 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1685) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 89Do890 delivered on July 25, 198 (Gong1989, 1319), Supreme Court Decision 209Do2979 delivered on March 29, 209 (Gong1989, 1319)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm Squa Law Firm, Attorneys Jeon-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No2186 delivered on December 13, 2001

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below in light of the evidence adopted by the court below and the first instance court, and found the defendant guilty on the part of the charges of this case that the officer or employee of financial institution received 200 million won of 200 million won cashier's checks from Gangseo on September 11, 1996, in consideration of the management of funds as stated in its reasoning, and found that the defendant received 167 million won of 167 million won of 167 cashier's checks from Gangseo and received 167 million won and received 167 million won of 167 million won as an officer or employee of financial institution as an officer or employee of financial institution, and found the defendant guilty on the part of 1,000 won of 333 cashier's checks, 30 million won of 330 million won of 30 million won of 30 million won of 196, and there is no evidence of the facts of the crime in violation of the rules of evidence related to the records.

B. The case holding that the court below rejected the first instance court's determination as to the admissibility of evidence on the ground that it is hard to find that the court below's 10 million won or more was offered or received under the pretext of the above 10th examination of the suspect interrogation protocol as evidence, since it is evident that the above 3th examination of the defendant's suspect interrogation protocol had no effect on the establishment of 10 million won or more for the above 10th examination, since it is hard to find that the court below's 10th examination of the suspect interrogation protocol as to the above 4th examination of the defendant's facts and the above 10th examination of the defendant's suspect interrogation protocol as to the 10th examination of the defendant's facts, and it is hard to find that there is no other evidence that there was no exception of the above 5th examination of the defendant's 10 million won or more for the above 10th examination of the suspect interrogation protocol as to the 3th examination of the defendant's facts, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that it was no exception of the above 4th examination of evidence.

C. According to the records, it can be recognized that the defendant voluntarily appeared at the prosecutor's summons, and confessions the criminal facts of this case including the receipt of money and valuables and the relationship to his duties, and even if the defendant partially denied the criminal facts in the prosecutor's office or court, the validity of the self-determination under the Criminal Act does not cease to exist. Thus, the court below's approval of the defendant's self-determination and the measures to reduce it by law are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the self

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Special Cases Concerning the Duties of Financial Institutions provides that "any officer or employee of a financial institution shall be in connection with the duties of the officer or employee of the financial institution". If an officer or employee of the financial institution receives money, valuables or other benefits from the customer's customer, it shall be deemed that the customer of the financial institution has been paid money, valuables or other benefits from the customer's former officer or employee, and it is merely an exceptional payment in light of social norms, or it shall not be deemed that there is no relation with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is clearly recognized that the individual-friendly relationship is due to the need for school, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2836, Feb. 10, 1998, etc.). In addition, Article 5 of the Act provides that where the nature of the act other than the duties, as consideration for the act of duties, and the nature of the act is indivisible as consideration for the act of duties, it shall be the same as the amount of money and valuables under Article 5 (4).

B. Examining the judgment below in light of the records on the premise of the above legal principles, the court below held that the defendant's act of receiving KRW 167 million against the defendant's above provision of financial convenience is indivisiblely combined with the name of the case where the defendant helps the defendant to carry out an election campaign for the purpose of lectures, etc., on the premise that the whole amount of the above money is in the nature of compensation for the officer and employee of financial institution, the measures to rate the defendant's criminal facts to Article 5 (4) 1 of the Act on Special Cases under the premise that it is reasonable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact-finding contrary to the rules of experience and logic, the interpretation of the above provision, or the burden of proof.

3. Therefore, all of the Prosecutor’s appeals and Defendant’s appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)