[1] The meaning of "the duties" under Article 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and the receipt of money and valuables by the officers and employees

[2] The number of crimes in the absence of a single and continuous criminal intent

[1] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes that "the officer or employee of a financial institution" means that the officer or employee of the financial institution is related to all business affairs handled while in his position. If the officer or employee of the financial institution receives money, valuables or other benefits from the customer, it shall be deemed that the customer has been repaid to the officer or employee of the financial institution in his former place of business, and it shall not be deemed that it is merely an exceptional payment in light of the social rules, or that there is no relation with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it can be clearly recognized that his personal-friendly relationship is due to the need for decentralization.

[2] In a case where multiple acts of acceptance of bribe exist, they have repeatedly committed the same kind of crime under the single and continuous criminal intent for a certain period, and where the legal benefits from the damage are the same, each crime shall be considered as an inclusive crime. However, when the unity and continuity of such a crime cannot be recognized, it shall be deemed that each crime constitutes a separate crime, and it shall be punished as concurrent crimes.

[1] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes / [2] Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Do890 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1319), Supreme Court Decision 93Do2962 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1372) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Do740 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 1147), Supreme Court Decision 89Do648 delivered on June 20, 1989 (Gong1989, 1105), Supreme Court Decision 89Do1334 delivered on September 26, 198 (Gong1989, 1623), Supreme Court Decision 297Do6098 delivered on December 26, 197 (Gong1979, 4795 delivered on December 26, 197)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorneys Kim Hun-Un et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 97No587 delivered on October 21, 1997

All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant 2

Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes that the officer or employee of a financial institution "in connection with his/her duties" means that the officer or employee of the financial institution is related to all the duties that he/she handles while in his/her position (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2962, Mar. 22, 1994; 89Do890, Jul. 25, 1989). If an officer or employee of a financial institution receives money or other benefits from his/her customer from his/her customer, he/she shall be paid to the customer he/she received or received from the officer or employee of the financial institution before, and it shall not be deemed that it is merely an exceptional price in light of social norms, or it is obviously recognized that personal-friendly relations are due to the need for the division of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do890, Jul. 25, 1989).

In comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below that the defendant 2, co-defendant 1, 2, and 3 who delivered the money in the judgment of the court of first instance to the defendant 1 who was in office as the president of the Seoul Bank was related to the money he delivered and the duty of the defendant as the representative of the company that all received credit from the Seoul Bank is just, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as discussed above. There is no ground for appeal by the defense counsel No. 1 and the ground for appeal by the defendant 2.

2. As to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s second ground of appeal

Where several acts of bribery are committed repeatedly for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal interest from the damage is the same, each crime shall be deemed to be a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity and continuity of such criminal intent cannot be recognized, each crime constitutes a separate crime, and it shall be punished as concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1334, Sept. 26, 1989; 89Do648, Jun. 20, 1989; 85Do740, Jul. 9, 1985).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that Defendant 1 received money from Defendant 2 for a period of seven months from April 1995 to November 1 of the same year after Defendant 1 received money from Defendant 2 in advance, payment guarantee request, etc. In light of the records and review, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 received money from a single and continuous criminal intent, and it can be deemed that Defendant 1 received money from a single and continuous criminal intent at each time, and there is no error of law in deciding the number of crimes as discussed above (the acceptance of money from Defendant 1 was received from Defendant 1 for the same name three times, and thus its criminal intent is uniform, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot be viewed as having received money from Defendant 2 as the acceptance of money from Defendant 1 from Defendant 1).

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)