In case where Defendant 1 delivered the whole amount of money and valuables received by Defendant 1 as the expense for solicitation of public official's affairs to the upper accused, the money and valuables received by Defendant 1 shall not constitute money and valuables or profits provided for confiscation or collection in accordance with Article 5 of the former Regulation of Administrative Affairs Act.

In case where Defendant 1 delivered all the money and valuables received by Defendant 1 to the upper accused as they are for solicitation of public official's affairs, the money and valuables received by Defendant 1 shall not fall under the money and valuables or the profits provided for confiscation or collection in accordance with Article 5 of the former Act on the Control of Administrative Affairs.

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Sh Chang-heat

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 70No1484 delivered on June 28, 1972

The part on Defendant 1 in the original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the court below's measure that recognized the criminal facts under Article 2 of the Regulation of Administrative Affairs Act against Defendant 2 in the health care unit by reviewing all evidence cited by the original judgment is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles and application of the law. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument for this reason.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged against Defendant 1, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Defendant received 1,650,000 won from Nonindicted 2 several times before and after the so-called expense arrangement for the entertainment expenses for the public officials concerned under the above title after receiving the request from Nonindicted 1 for the approval of the change in the contents of the permission to carry in property, etc., and sentenced Defendant 1 to collect the above amount of KRW 1,650,000 from Defendant 1 in accordance with Article 5 of the Act on the Control of Administrative Affairs. Meanwhile, the court below determined that Defendant 1 delivered the above amount of KRW 1,650,00 as it is to Defendant 2. However, in case where Defendant 1 delivered the whole amount of money received from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the above money and valuables received from Defendant 1 under Article 581 of the Act or the above additional collection under Article 184 of the Act.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed as without merit. Defendant 1’s appeal is with merit, and the part on Defendant 1 among the original judgment is reversed and remanded to the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)