Whether the equivalent amount has been collected in addition to the value where the money received as a bribe was returned to the mineer after the deposit (affirmative)

If a bank deposits money received as a bribe, the deposit constitutes a disposal act of the bribe, and even if the receiver thereafter returns the same amount of money to the receiver, it cannot be viewed as the return of the bribe itself. In this case, the equivalent amount should be collected from the consignee.

Article 134 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Do1350 Decided September 10, 1985 (Gong1985, 1370) Supreme Court Decision 86Do2021 Decided December 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 273)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 95No1836 delivered on July 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a bank deposits money received as a bribe, the deposit constitutes a disposal act of the bribe, and even if the consignee thereafter returned the money equivalent to the same amount to the receiver, it cannot be viewed as a return of the bribe itself. In such a case, the equivalent amount should be collected from the consignee (see Supreme Court Decisions 69Do2461, Apr. 14, 1970; 85Do1350, Sept. 10, 1985).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below erred in the decision of the court of first instance that ordered collection of KRW 100 million to Co-defendant through Co-defendant 1 through the court of first instance, but there is no evidence to deem that the above money was returned to the above defendant as is. Rather, on March 10, 194, the above money was distributed to Co-defendant 100 million in the name of Co-defendant 1 in the above judgment of the court of first instance, and on the ground that on March 10, 1994, the above defendant deposited the above money in the name of Co-defendant 1 in the above judgment of the court of first instance to Co-defendant 1 through Co-defendant 1 through the court of first instance, the above money was deposited in the passbook in the name of Co-defendant 1 in the above judgment of the court of first instance, and it is not acceptable to accept the ground of appeal that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collection as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the whole original judgment against the defendant, but did not submit the appellate brief within a legitimate period as to the remainder except the judgment in the above paragraph (1). The prosecutor did not state the reasons in the appellate brief.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)