Whether the head of the Gu Office Health Book is related to the receipt of money and valuables in relation to the change of the use of the building and duties in bribery.

In relation to the crime of bribery, even if the pertinent public official does not have the right to decide on his duties, it includes cases where the pertinent public official is closely related to the act of his duties and acts of actual management. Thus, the court below's decision that accepting money from the person operating an entertainment establishment in relation to the change of the purpose of the building is justified.

Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Dong-hun

Seoul High Court Decision 88No2779 delivered on March 3, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the grounds of appeal by a public defender:

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below rejected the defendant's grounds for appeal that there is no voluntariness of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, and accepted the measures recognized as being delivered to the defendant by the evidence cited by the court of first instance, and also the money delivered by the defendant is delivered to the defendant in connection with his duties, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence and duties in bribery, and there is no reason to criticize

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

Point 1

As seen above, the court below's finding that there is no error of law against the rules of evidence in the facts-finding of the court below, and even if the public official does not have the right to decide on his duties in relation to the bribery, it shall include the cases closely related to the act and the act of actual management. Thus, it is just for the court below's finding that the money received by the defendant was delivered to the defendant in relation to his duties as the head of the first sanitary management office of the defendant. Accordingly, there is no reason to argue that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the relation of the duty in the crime of bribery.

Point 2

In examining the records of the case, it does not seem that any statement in the investigation process of the defendant or co-defendant in the first instance court or any part of the statement in the court of the first instance court is either voluntariness or credibility, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the discussion of the case is without merit.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)