If the consignee has deposited the money received as a bribe and returned it later, the person subject to collection of the returned bribe shall be additionally collected.

If the receiver has deposited the money received as a bribe in his own name, but thereafter, the same amount of money out of the deposit is divided into cash and check, and then returned it to the receiver, the amount should be consumed once the money was deposited. Thus, the amount should be collected from the consignee.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1666 delivered on January 24, 1967 (Kakadd 3634, Supreme Court Decision 15Do10 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 134(5)1279 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (72 Gohap519)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and six months, by a fine of 100,00 won, and by a fine of 80,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 2 and 3 do not pay each of the above fines, they shall be confined in each workhouse for the period calculated by converting 500 won into one day.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 65 days, the original sentence to Defendant 1, and the above fine to Defendant 2 shall be included in the period of detention.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

520,000 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

Defendant 2 and 3 shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1’s first ground for appeal and Defendant 2’s ground for appeal did not provide this case to Defendant 1 as a bribe with respect to Defendant 1’s duties. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the removal of an unauthorized building at issue, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Defendant 3’s ground for appeal is that the court below acknowledged Defendant 1 as a bribe in collaboration with Defendant 2 without any evidence and did not deliver the above amount to Defendant 1 as a bribe. Although Defendant 2’s ground for appeal was charged with two charges, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the comprehensive violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Therefore, in light of the records, it is sufficient to fully recognize the facts of each crime when the original judgment that the defendants sent and received the money as a bribe, and it cannot be deemed that there was a mistake of mistake of facts or a violation of law as pointed out in the reasoning of the judgment below, and thus, each of the above grounds for appeal against this point cannot be accepted.

However, when examining the judgment below ex officio, the court below held that Defendant 1 returned the money received by Defendant 1 to the above defendant 2 and 3, and that the above money was concealed from the above defendant 1 and 2, and in light of the records, it can be recognized that Defendant 1 received this money from the above defendant 1 and collected it from the above defendant 1 and paid it to the above defendant 2 by dividing it into cash and check after collecting the same amount of money from the above bank deposit account in the above defendant 1's name. Thus, Defendant 1 would have consumed this money as a bribe. Thus, the court below collected it from other defendants 1, although it should have to collect it from the above others, it should not be reversed because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on collection or by misapprehending the legal principles on collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed ex officio and the following judgment shall be rendered again.

Since each fact-finding and fact-finding of evidence against the Defendants recognized as a party member are the same as that of the judgment of the court below, all of them will be cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The facts of acceptance of a bribe by Defendant 1 are as follows: Article 2(1) and 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 133(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act are as follows; Articles 133(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act are as follows; Defendant 2 and 3 are as follows; Defendant 1 is as follows; Defendant 2 and 3 are as follows: first, after this case was considered as a first offense, the light that has a depth of the offense and return of the money received; Defendant 1 is to reduce the amount of punishment pursuant to Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Defendant 2 and 3 are to increase the amount of fine pursuant to Article 4(1) of the above Act; Defendant 3 and 500 of the above Act are as follows; Defendant 2 and 50 of the above Act are to be included in the amount of fine for each of the above offenses; Defendant 2 and 300 of the above fine within the prescribed period.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Promotion