(2) The number of crimes of acceptance of bribery over time

Even if there are several acts of receiving bribe over several occasions, it is reasonable to punish it as an inclusive crime if it is performed by a single and continuous criminal intent and infringes on the same legal interest.

Articles 37 and 129 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do1409 Delivered on October 26, 1982, 85Do1502 Delivered on September 24, 1985

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

For Defendant 1, Attorney Kim Byung-nam, and Attorney Park Dong-dong for Defendant 2

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1099 Decided July 2, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

According to the evidence of the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts charged in the judgment of the defendant, and it cannot be viewed that there is a bruent evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the theory of litigation, etc.

2. Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal

(a)with respect to the first, second, and third points:

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there is no reason to suspect that each of the statements made by the prosecutor in the protocol of interrogation of the defendant against the party interested in the lawsuit, including the suspect interrogation of the defendant, was made under the reliable circumstances. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there is no voluntariness of the above evidence. According to the above evidence, it is proper to acknowledge that the defendant receives a total of KRW 730,000 from the non-indicted who is engaged in the construction business without permission for three times, including the non-indicted who is engaged in the construction business without permission, and is engaged in the detection and reporting of illegal buildings occurring in the above office of the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as an employee of the employees belonging to the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and reports it to the upper court, and that the defendant mainly reports it to the upper court. The court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or violating the rules of evidence.

In addition, since the money and valuables received by the Defendant are for supporting the Saemaul Movement and are legally guaranteed under Article 3(2) of the Saemaul Movement Organization Support Act, it is not punishable as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code. Since the amount received at entertainment is merely equivalent to 100,000 won, and it is merely an attack on the judgment of the court below on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the court below that there is no bribe, and the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate for this case. All the arguments are groundless.

(b)as to the fourth and fifth points:

Although the defendant received bribe over several occasions, it is reasonable to punish a single and continuous act as an inclusive crime if it infringes on the same legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do1502, Sept. 24, 1985). The defendant, like in this case, received KRW 730,000 for the same reason from the same person three times as in this case, shall be deemed to have been done by a single and continuous criminal intent. Thus, the judgment of the court below which deemed this as an inclusive crime cannot be deemed to have been justified and there is no error in the application of the law such as the theory of lawsuit, and since the money received by the defendant is not received by the defendant as the principal agent but by multiple employees, it is not a single and continuous crime, and therefore, it is not reasonable to interpret the judgment of the court below that it is unlawful to impose a surcharge of KRW 730,000 on the defendant, and it is not reasonable to discuss the facts that the judgment of the court below was unlawful.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)