A. The degree of proof to acknowledge a guilty criminal facts

(b) The meaning of "cases or affairs handled by public officials" under Article 78 (1) of the former Attorney-at-Law Act;

(c) The case holding that the act of receiving money from the subcontractor company under the pretext that the head of the branch office of the contracted company that merely lends the name of the joint project proprietor in order to meet the requirements for registration necessary for obtaining approval of the apartment construction project plan constitutes subparagraph 1 of Article 78 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act, under the pretext that the contracting company solicits the public official in charge to obtain such approval promptly

A. In a criminal judgment, the facts constituting an offense require a judge’s conviction of high probability that the judge cannot make a rational doubt, and the mere fact that there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant cannot be found guilty.

B. The case or affairs handled by a public official under subparagraph 1 of Article 78 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of March 10, 1993) shall be interpreted to refer to all the cases or affairs except for his own identity.

(c) In a case where a construction company applied to an administrative authority for approval of the construction project plan for an apartment but the application for approval was rejected due to reasons that it is not a registered housing construction business operator meeting the requirements of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and a registered business operator meeting the requirements of the same Act and obtained approval of the project plan by including the construction project in the form of a joint project proprietor, the case held that the supply and demand company's business affairs cannot be deemed to be affairs of the contracting company until the supply and demand company is included in the joint project proprietor, and the supply and demand company's business affairs cannot be deemed to be affairs related to the construction approval because the supply and demand company merely lent its name to meet the requirements for registration even after the company is included in the joint project proprietor, and thus, it cannot be deemed to be affairs of the contracting company, and if the head of the contracting company received money from the representative of the contracting company under the pretext of soliciting the public officials to receive the deliberation on the project plan or the approval of the project plan, it is not a multi-party request for affairs of others, not self-employed.

A. Article 308 (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Subparagraph 1 of Article 78 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of March 10, 1993)

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do1385 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2385) b. 86Do1425 delivered on January 19, 198 (Gong1988, 465)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant 2

Attorney Soh Hong-kn et al.

Busan High Court Decision 94No125, 93No1790 decided Jun. 22, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In a criminal judgment, the proof of facts constituting a crime requires a high probability that the judge is unable to make a reasonable doubt, and it cannot be found guilty solely on the ground that there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant. In light of the records, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendants on the ground that there is no proof of offering or receiving of bribe among the facts charged in this case is reasonable in light of this principle, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds for appeal. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act (amended by Act No. 4544 of Mar. 10, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 78 subparagraph 1 of the former Attorney-at-law Act shall be interpreted to refer to all cases or affairs other than personal affairs (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1425 of Jan. 19, 198).

According to the records of this case, the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 1 corporation") was established a business plan to build and sell 728 households of the apartment on the land as indicated in the judgment of the court below on November 1990 and entered into a contract with the non-indicted 3 corporation as contract period between the non-indicted 2 corporation, the head of Busan branch office of the non-indicted 3 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-indicted 3 corporation") with the non-indicted 3 corporation as contract period. On November 13 of this year, the application for deliberation of the above non-indicted 3's housing construction plan was completed on December 29 of the same year, but the above application was rejected on the ground of the non-indicted 3's failure to implement the deliberation conditions, and the above plan was finally modified to implement the above construction project plan again with the non-indicted 3 corporation's housing association, the non-indicted 1 corporation and the above non-indicted 3 corporation's joint housing association's construction project approval requirements.

In light of the above facts, the deliberation on the project plan or approval of the project plan from the administrative authority for the execution of the above apartment construction project cannot be said to mean that the matters belonging to the affairs of the non-indicted 1 and the above three housing associations are the affairs of the non-indicted 3 until the non-indicted 3 is included as joint project undertakers. Even after the non-indicted 3 was included as joint project undertakers, the above affairs related to the approval of the construction project cannot be deemed to be the affairs of the non-indicted 3. Thus, since the non-indicted 3 merely lent the name to meet the registration requirements, the above affairs related to the approval of the construction project cannot be deemed to be the affairs of the non-indicted 3. Thus, since the above defendant, the head of the non-indicted 3's Busan branch office, who is the representative of the non-indicted 1 company, has received money from the non-indicted 2 under the pretext of soliciting the public officials in charge of the Busan Viewing housing construction project so that he can promptly obtain the deliberation on the project plan or approval of the project plan.

In addition, according to the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the judgment of the court below, all of the measures of the court below that recognized the fact that the above defendant received 185,00,000 won in total over 11 times from the relevant public officials under the pretext of soliciting the relevant public officials to deliberate on the project plan or approve the project plan in relation to the construction project of the apartment of this case, and there is no error in violation of the law such as the violation of the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, both public prosecutors and Defendant 2’s instant appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)