Whether the banking agency is an executive officer of a government-managed enterprise under Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

The Korea Development Bank has personnel regulations, but there is no position of director or representative, but there is only a case of name of director or director representative for convenience according to the subordinate organization, so the bank agency is not a executive officer of the government-managed enterprise deemed a public official under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Article 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. and Article 3 subparag. 1 of its Enforcement Decree

Supreme Court Decision 71Do1786 Delivered on November 23, 1971

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendant 6

Prosecutor (Objection against Defendant 1 through 6)

Attorneys Yu Man-man et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 78No1069 delivered on October 11, 1979

The part concerning Defendant 6 in the original judgment is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's first ground for appeal is examined.

The court below reviewed the records in determining that Defendant 2’s receipt of the above money and valuables from Defendant 3 is not related to his duties, since it was in the position of division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division, etc. of industrial facility funds and machinery domestic production funds and construction work funds, and it was not related to the above loan approval and loan, and it was not related to Defendant 3’s receipt of the above money and valuables division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division division.

According to the organization of Korea Development Bank bound in the records, the personnel records card against Defendant 2, etc., Defendant 2 appears to have been the director of the planning division of the Korea Development Bank head at the time of receiving the above money and valuables, but it appears to have changed only the name of the director of the division No. 2 due to an organizational revision, and even though the court below did not have any effect on the result of the judgment, it cannot be found that there is no ground to recognize that the above defendant approved the name of the director of the division in the name of the director of the

The issue is groundless.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

At the time of the case, Defendant 4 was represented by the Department of Technology of the Korea Development Bank and Defendant 5 was represented by the Ulsan Branch of the said Bank. In this case, according to the contents of the reply to the fact-finding made by the President of the Korea Development Bank and the fact-finding reply of the Minister of Finance and Economy, Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 did not belong to the executive officer of the government-managed enterprise deemed to be a public official under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the court below did not have a director or an agent under the personnel regulations but has no position as an agent in charge, but there is no position as an agent in charge, but it can be recognized that there is only a case called as an agent in charge or an agent in charge according to the convenience organization.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 5 of the primary facts charged that the bribe was given and received between Defendant 1, 3, and Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 as all the primary facts charged are not guilty. The prosecutor submitted a petition of appeal with respect to Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 did not indicate the scope of objection, and the reason for appeal can be known to the effect that the sentencing on Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 for the crime of taking a bribe (including the primary facts charged with Defendant 5) is less severe. Thus, the facts of taking a bribe, which is the primary facts charged with the above Defendants, cannot be subject to the judgment of the court below, became final and conclusive at the court of first instance on the grounds that the facts of taking a bribe, which is the primary facts charged with the above Defendants, cannot be subject to the judgment of the court below, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the appeal as to the acceptance of a bribe.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the statements made by the prosecution of Defendant 3, 4, and 5 up to the court of original judgment, it is acknowledged that the prosecutor requested that the company process the business within the scope of his own authority, such as Defendant 4, who was in charge of the technical research for the approval of the loan, or Defendant 5, who was in charge of the technical research for the loan of related funds, take advantage of all the convenience in handling the business within the scope of his own authority and authority, and did not request the company to deal with the business unlawfully or unfairly. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant 1, 3, and 4, and 5 cannot be said to have made an illegal solicitation for the acceptance of the loan in this case between Defendant 1, and Defendant 4, and 5, without the evidence, is just and there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles of improper solicitation for the crime of giving and receiving the loan in breach of trust

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

In light of each of the statements consistent with Defendant 7, Defendant 3-1 and the court of original trial, the court below did not believe the statements or written statements of the said Defendants at the investigation stage, and it cannot be deemed that there was an illegality in violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence which misleads the preparation of evidence to acknowledge the fact that the amount of this amount received by Defendant 7 from Defendant 3 was 30,000.

Defendant 6’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is clear that the defendant 6 received 300,000 won which was provided as school guard and received 300,000 won which was provided as school guard, and accepted as bribe in relation to his duties, from the front side of the express bus near Ulsan City around 18:00 on January 9, 1978, in accordance with the statement of the protocol of examination of the suspect as to co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance as to co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance and the protocol of examination of the suspect as to co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance as to the preparation of the prosecutor.

However, according to the records, although the defendant was found to have committed this crime before the court below's ruling, he did not have any effect on the investigation records at the 154-156 prosecutor's statement, he denied the confessions before the investigation officers, and the defendant denied the confessions at the 1st trial court's 7th trial court's prosecutor's statement at the 6th trial court's office's 19th trial office's 7th trial office's 19th trial office's 6th trial office's 7th trial office's 6th trial office's 19th trial office's 7th trial office's 6th trial office's 19th trial office's 6th trial office's 16th trial office's 7th trial office's 6th trial office's 6th trial office's 19th trial office's 6th trial office's 19th trial office's 6th trial office's 6th trial office's 7th trial office's 7th trial office's 19th trial office'.

Therefore, the part concerning Defendant 6 among the original judgment is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Sap-ho (Presiding Justice)