(a) The intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement;

(b) The case holding that the former president of the Eastern Games constitutes the crime of occupational embezzlement when he/she paid the sales fund to the former and current Do Governors, etc. of the five North Korean Dos from the business promotion expenses, and the payment of the receipts and expenses, etc. to the executives

(c) Scope of business relationship in the crime of bribery;

(d) A case recognizing the number of persons who requested an investigation by telephone to an investigative agency after a suspected fact has started in the press;

(a) in the crime of occupational embezzlement means the intention to dispose of, in fact or in law, the property of another person in breach of his or her duties for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself or any third person, as he or she owns;

B. The case affirming the judgment below holding that since the business promotion expenses of a bank were set as items for external activities related expenses, data collection and various entertainment expenses, and other miscellaneous business expenses under the budget management regulations, their entertainment expenses refer to entertainment expenses paid by a corporation to a customer or a person related to business affairs in connection with its business, regardless of the pretext, such as contact, school system, case, and other similar acts, and since most shareholders of the Dolver Bank are organizations or individuals of the 5 North Korean Dos association, etc., such as the Dolvers Association, Gunl Association, etc., or private organizations or individuals of the 5 North Korean Dos association, etc., and it is difficult for the Do governor, etc. to pay sales and official expenses, etc. or pay money in the name of the executives or employees of the bank to the executives or employees of the company, regardless of the original purpose of the business promotion expenses, they constitute the crime of occupational embezzlement.

(c) In the crime of bribery, a job includes not only a job in charge of the public official’s law but also a job in charge of the official duties and a job in charge of assisting or affecting the decision-making authority.

D. Even though the facts suspected of suspicion began on the newspaper site, since there was no official summons from the investigative agency, it is not possible to voluntarily attend the investigation agency and clarify the facts, and request the prosecutor who is subject to punishment to undergo an investigation by telephone, and prepare a written statement that acknowledges all facts suspected of suspicion by voluntarily attending the prosecutor's office after specifying the time of attendance, and where all facts suspected of suspicion were led to the confession of the facts of suspicion in the investigation process by the prosecutor's office, the defendant shall be deemed to voluntarily surrenders the facts of the offense to the administrative agency responsible for the investigation, and even if he made a statement that differs from the confession in the investigation

Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 of the Criminal Act, Article 129(1), and Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do2698 delivered on October 14, 1986 (Gong1986, 3058) (Gong1989, 1705) 87Do1901 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1705) (Gong1992, 3341 delivered on October 27, 1992) 84Do139 delivered on August 14, 1984 (Gong1984, 1568) 83Do2050 delivered on May 14, 1985 (Gong1985, 863) 87Do1472 delivered on September 22, 1987 (Gong1987, 197) 94Do45989 delivered on April 16, 195 (Gong19954, Sept. 19, 1995)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and Prosecutor

Attorney Seo Jong-woo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 93No3441 delivered on January 28, 1994

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

The court below acknowledged the fact that the above defendant, the president of the non-indicted 1 Bank, attached a false receipt to the disbursement resolution form that he withdrawn business promotion expenses from the budget of the above bank, raised funds, and disbursed the money of the judgment among them to the Do Governor, the former Do Governor, the former Do Governor, and the non-standing directors, etc., on the pretext of the fact that it is difficult for them to use the false receipts, and that the executive officers of the above bank and the director general of the office of the above bank made it difficult for them to use

The issue is that the above act of the defendant is for the above bank, which is merely for the use of the budget item, and does not constitute the crime of occupational embezzlement. However, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement refers to the intent to dispose of another person's property in fact or in law, such as his own property, which is in violation of his/her duties for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1901, Oct. 10, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 85Do2698, Oct. 14, 1986). According to the records, the above bank's business promotion expenses are set as items for external expenses related to the budget management regulations, data collection and various entertainment expenses, and other entertainment expenses are not for the purpose of occupational embezzlement or miscellaneous business expenses, and the court below's determination that the above act is not for the purpose of embezzlement or misappropriation of the above private company's own property, and it is not for the purpose of the above private or miscellaneous act.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. As to Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

In relation to the crime of bribery, it shall be interpreted that the act includes not only the act of duties under the control of the public official, but also the act of assisting or influencing the decision-making authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do2050, May 14, 1985).

The court below recognized the fact that the above defendant was given money to Defendant 1 upon the request of Defendant 1 to the effect that he would be responsible for the overall affairs of which the bank was being promoted, while in office as a presidential secretary for economic affairs, and since the presidential secretary for economic affairs, including the supervision of financial institutions, performs the duties of coordinating, controlling and supervising the establishment of all national economic policies, and checks and supervises the implementation of the presidential instructions throughout the whole economy, including the supervision of financial institutions, and exercises de facto influence over the affairs of financial institutions, such as consulting with the heads of administrative agencies concerned and reporting his opinion to the President, it is judged that the above defendant was closely related to the act of duties at least. The above recognition and decision of the court below are proper, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts contrary to the evidence, or by failing to specify the legal principles as to job relationship or duties in the crime of bribery, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

3. As to the prosecutor's ground of appeal on Defendant 1

The court below found that Defendant 1 received KRW 50,00,00 from Nonindicted Co. 3, who was in office as the president of Nonindicted Co. 1 bank and received money and valuables in connection with his duties under the pretext of honorarium for loaninging KRW 7,00,000 from Nonindicted Co. 2, who was in office as the president of the Bank, the court below held that the above Defendant did not return money to Nonindicted Co. 2 after taking account of the fact that he received money and received money from Nonindicted Co. 3, who was working as the Vice Director of the Bank, and that he did not return money to Nonindicted Co. 2 for the following reasons that he did not receive money from Nonindicted Co. 3, 200,000 won after finding the Defendant at the time, and he did not return money to Nonindicted Co. 2, who was in office for the reason that he did not want to receive money from Nonindicted Co. 3’s transfer from the Bank, and that he did not return money to Nonindicted Co. 2, 2000, after making contact with him.

According to the records, the result of the evidence cooking conducted by the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of experience and the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to hold this argument.

4. As to the prosecutor's ground of appeal on Defendant 2

According to the records, although the defendant started to report the facts suspected of suspicion on the newspaper site, there is no official summons from the investigative agency, so the defendant is waiting to voluntarily attend the investigation agency and clarify the facts and request the prosecutor in charge of the case subject to punishment to get an investigation by telephone, but he is waiting to inform the date of investigation because the investigation schedule has not been finally fixed, but he again waits for the prosecutor to attend the investigation again, and prepare a written statement that recognizes all the facts suspected of suspicion by voluntarily attending the police station, and all the facts of suspicion have been led to confession during the investigation process by the prosecutor.

If the circumstances are the same as above before and after the defendant voluntarily attended the investigation agency and reported the facts of the crime, the defendant shall be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered to the government agency responsible for the investigation. In addition, inasmuch as the defendant made a statement when he was examined as a suspect by the prosecution as to the facts of the crime of this case, even though he made a statement that differs from the confessions made in the investigation agency only on the duty relationship of the gold commissioner received by the above defendant in the court like the theory of lawsuit, it shall not affect the validity of the number of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do659 delivered on May 10, 194, 1994). Therefore, it is proper that the court below recognized that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the facts of this case and imposed the reduction of law, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the self-denunciation, such as theory

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)