The propriety of collection in case where the cashier's checks have been consumed as a bribe and the amount equivalent to the face value has been returned.

Even if the defendant once consumeds the cashier's check accepted as a bribe and returned the same amount to the mineer, it is reasonable to collect the equivalent amount from the defendant.

Article 48(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 129(1) and 134 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do2462 Delivered on April 12, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Won-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1723 delivered on October 19, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, there is no reason to suspect that the confession of the defendant in the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the public prosecutor was not made voluntarily or there is no credibility, and there is no error of law in misconception of facts against the rules of evidence by recognizing facts only by the confession of the defendant. Furthermore, according to the above evidence, since it can be acknowledged that the execution and execution of the new and new office building and site of this case and exchange contract are acts belonging to the authority of the head of the net Police station, the court below is just in holding that the acceptance of money of this case was performed in relation to the duties of the defendant, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to relation to bribe and duties, incomplete hearing, and lack of reasoning in relation to the crime of acceptance of bribery. And according to the above evidence, the defendant is only recognized as a bribe and returned the above amount to the witness again. Thus, the court below's decision that collected the above amount is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the charge of bribery or the collection of bribery.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)