Since the Act on the Control of Legal Affairs was enacted for the purpose of punishing a person who obtains unfair benefits from another person's legal affairs, in case where he receives money and valuables to be provided to a public official in exchange for a request for the affairs of a public official and delivers all to the public official, it shall not be deemed that

Since the Regulation of Administrative Affairs Act was enacted for the purpose of punishing a person who has obtained unfair benefits from another person's legal affairs, in cases where a public official receives money and valuables to be provided to a public official in exchange for a request for administrative affairs and delivers them to the public official, it shall not be deemed that he/she has received money

Article 2 of the Control of Administrative Affairs Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No2932 Decided July 13, 1971, the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No2932 Decided July 13, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's appeal is examined.

Even if the original judgment is compared to the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fact that the defendant provided 330,000 won received from the above public officials in response to the request of the telephone opinion from Nonindicted 1 and 2 to the related public officials, and all of the above public officials received 330,000 won per unit from the above public officials, and the statutory virtual virtual facilities are 105,080 won per unit. Thus, even though the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that he received the above money and valuables from the above public officials as the gift of the above public officials, but the fact that the defendant promised to receive the above money and valuables at the discretion of the above public official's solicitation, the part on the witness of the first instance court and the part on the statement of Nonindicted 1, 2, and 4 prepared by the judicial police officer, which were consistent with this, cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the fact that the defendant received the above money and valuables for the legal affairs of another public official, and it cannot be deemed to be justified.

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-nam Kim Young-ho