Recognition of acceptance of a bribe in relation to the crime and duties of the bribery.

Although there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the intention of accepting a bribe in relation to the duties of the bribery, there is an error of violating the Act which takes the whole of the bribery facts as a blanket crime.

Article 129 of the Criminal Act

Defendant and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 66No1117 delivered on August 25, 1966

Of the original judgment, the conviction part against the highest court of defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

All of the appeals by the prosecutor against the chief executive officer of the defendant and the appeals by the defendant Song-young are dismissed.

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Song Jae-young

In a case where the original judgment, which did not consent to the defendant as evidence, adopted the protocol of examination of the criminal suspect against the defendant prepared by the judicial police officer as evidence, was erroneous, but the records are compared to other legitimate evidences cited by the original judgment, and the facts of original offense against the defendant can be recognized. In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for one year in June, the argument that the sentencing of the original judgment is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal against the original judgment, and all arguments are groundless.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal against the Prosecutor’s Chief Justice

In the end, the issue is due to criticism of fact-finding in the original judgment, and the prosecutor cannot claim facts-finding for the disadvantage of the defendant as the ground of appeal.

3. Determination on the Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal. According to the original judgment, the lower court reversed the Defendant’s judgment of not guilty on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s statement at the lower court’s court’s court; (b) the testimony of the Defendant, etc., Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4 regarding the preparation of handling affairs by the public prosecutor and judicial police officer; and (c) the details of the seized evidence 1 and 2, etc., on the Defendant’s own account of the position of the Director of the National Institute of Railroad, while the Defendant is in the position of the Director of the National Institute of Railroad, and on the part of the public official in charge of the duties concerning the introduction and maintenance of the vehicle’s new lighting and maintenance of the vehicle; and (d) on two occasions at the same time, on the same time as that of the police officer in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jungdong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was in need of solicitation of cleaning work, and thus, accepted KRW 10.

However, according to the records, the defendant's statement in the court of first instance through the court of first and second trials is sufficient to have been contacted by Co-defendant 1, 1965, but drinking was not done, and the testimony of Non-indicted 1 is the same as the above defendant's statement, and there was no reference to the above facts in the testimony of Non-indicted 2, Non-indicted 3 and Non-indicted 4 who were examined as witness at the prosecutor's office or the police's office, and there was no evidence of the above fact-finding that the defendant's statement in the court of first and second trials might not be evidence of the above fact-finding, and there was no evidence of evidence that the non-indicted 1 and Non-indicted 2 appeared in the court of first and the defendant's statement in the court of first and second trials on the non-indicted 5's own stocks, and there was no evidence of evidence that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 5's statement in the court of first and second trials on the non-indicted 1's own stocks.

4. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s final appeal against the Prosecutor’s Chief Justice and the final appeal against the Defendant Song-young are all dismissed, and the conviction against the Defendant Chief Justice among the original judgment is reversed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu