[1] Job relevance to a bribe

[2] The relationship between political funds and a bribe

[3] The scope of duties in the crime of bribery

[1] The crime of bribery refers to the process of performing duties and the trust of the society in which the non-purchase of a job act is protected as a legal interest directly. Since it is not necessary to consider the violation of a duty or the existence of a solicitation as it does not require a solicitation or an unlawful act, it is sufficient that a bribe has been received in relation to a job, and it is not necessary to have a relation with an individual job act or a quid pro quo, and there is no need to specify a job act.

[2] Even though money and valuables are given and received under the pretext of political funds, election funds, and money and valuables, such money and valuables do not lose the nature of a bribe as long as they have the substance of consideration for the duties of a political-party public official.

[3] The term "duty" in the crime of acceptance of bribe includes not only the duty in charge of law, but also the duty in charge of a public official to assist or influence the decision-making authority as well as the duty in charge of law.

[1] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes / [2] Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes / [3] Article 129(

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Do1017 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2681), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3458), Supreme Court Decision 94Do302 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 703), Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Do377 delivered on April 17, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1354) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Do619 delivered on September 9, 199 (Gong194Ha, 2675), Supreme Court Decision 196Do1975 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong19685 delivered on June 196, 199)

A

Defendant

Attorney B

Seoul High Court Decision 96No1894 delivered on December 16, 1996

The appeal shall be dismissed. One hundred days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Bribery is the process of performance of duties and the trust of the society where the non-purchase of the act of duties is protected by the law, and there is no need to consider the violation of the duty or the existence of solicitation in recognizing the bribe of the money and valuables received because it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act in relation to the duties. Thus, the bribe is sufficient to receive the bribe in relation to the duties, and there is no need to be a quid pro quo relationship with an individual act of duty or a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of duty. Furthermore, even if the receipt of money and valuables is made under the pretext of political funds, election funds, or money and valuables, it does not lose the nature of the bribe as long as it

The court below is just in finding that all of the funds received by the former president C from each of the enterprises in this case, regardless of whether the former president C was actually given preferential treatment as well as the name or use thereof, and it constitutes a bribe and thus, it is reasonable to recognize the defendant as a crime of aiding and abetting bribery. There is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the crime of accepting bribery and by punishing the defendant as an accessory to the crime of accepting bribery, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. The duty of a public official in the crime of acceptance of bribe includes not only the duty under the law, but also the duty to assist or influence the decision-making authority, and the record reveals that the court below is just in holding that the amount received from Nonindicted D is a bribe in return for the defendant's duty, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the crime of acceptance of bribe, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that there was no possibility of expectation of lawful act at the time of the case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of expectation, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

All of the grounds of appeal are without merit. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)