Whether additional collection shall be made where the amount of money equivalent to a bribe has been returned after the bribe consumption.

Although the amount received by the consignee was returned to the receiver after the date of the return, if it was paid to another money after receiving and consuming the money, the court below's decision to collect the money is justified.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1666 Decided January 24, 1967

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Shin Tae-tae, Kim Jong-hee, and Kim Hong

Seoul High Court Decision 81No3301 delivered on March 31, 1983

All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on Defendant 1

A. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 and the Defendant’s grounds of appeal by state counsel

According to the records, Co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court of first instance, each protocol of interrogation prepared by the defendant and Co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court of first instance prepared under physical or mental coercions, and there is no evidence to deem any arbitability, and according to the records, Co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court of first instance made a statement meeting the defendant's defense at the time of the trial of the court of first instance, but they made a statement of the same contents as the defendant's defense in the prosecutor's office from the time of the trial of the court of first instance to the time after the trial of the court of first instance was changed later, and their statements in the court of first instance are made the same as the defendant's defense in the prosecutor's office after the trial of the court of first instance was changed later, it cannot be said that their statements in the court of first instance are not reliable with any different points. According to the evidence produced by the court of first instance, it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant received 6.

B. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3

According to the records, the amount of 50,000 won received by the defendant from the co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial on August 5, 1981 is paid to the co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial around August 10 of the same year, but considering the defendant's statement and other evidence at the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant paid the above amount to another money in the front and rear consumption of the above money. Thus, the decision of the court below is acceptable and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of additional collection, such as theory of lawsuit, and therefore the argument cannot be adopted.

2. Determination on Defendant 2

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defense counsel

According to the records, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that each protocol of examination prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant and co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance was prepared in physical or mental coercion state, and there is no voluntariness or no credibility, and according to the evidence at the time of the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that 50,000 won are given or received in relation to the defendant's duties, as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be said that there

3. Judgment on Defendant 3

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by defense counsel

In light of the records, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that each protocol of examination prepared by the defendant and co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance was prepared in physical or mental coercion state, and there is no evidence to deem any voluntariness or credibility, and according to the evidence at the time of the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received one million won over two times in relation to his duties, as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles

(b)as to the third ground for appeal:

In light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that it is hard to believe in light of the defendant's statement at the court of first instance and the court of first instance as to the fact that the defendant returned each of the above money to its original state, and the statement at the court of first instance as to the witness's statement at the court of first instance and the representative director at the court of first instance as well as the statement at the court of first instance at the court of first instance and that there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the receipt in the name of the representative director of

4. Judgment on Defendant 4

A. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor against the defendant is prepared in physical or mental coercion condition, or prepared by deception, and there is no evidence to deem that there is no voluntariness or credibility.

(b)as to the second and third points of that subparagraph:

According to the evidence of the court below's ruling, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant received 2 million won in relation to his duties over 4 times as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore the argument cannot be

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)