[1] The meaning of "duty" in the crime of bribery

[2] The case holding that the crime of acceptance of bribe is established in case where a police officer in charge of the business of transferring the driver's license to an employee in charge of the business of cancelling the driver's license, receives money from the person under control for the request that the driver does not revoke the driver's license, after preparing all documents related to

[3] The elements for the court to acknowledge facts constituting a crime different from those stated in the indictment ex officio without changing the indictment

[4] The case holding that the facts charged as a crime of acceptance of bribe can be acknowledged as a crime of acceptance of bribe without changing the indictment

[1] Bribery is the process of performing duties and the trust of the society in which the non-purchase of a job act is the legal interest and protection of the law directly. Thus, the bribery does not include not include not only the duty stipulated in the law, but also the duty related thereto, nor all the duties that public officials, such as duties, etc., under the law, shall take charge of official duties according to the relevant position, as well as duties prescribed in the law, but also duties that are not actually carried out according to the division of duties in the past or to be carried out in the future.

[2] The case holding that the crime of acceptance of bribe is established in case where a police officer in charge of the business of transferring the driver's license to an employee in charge of the business of the revocation of the driver's license receives money from the person under control by receiving a request from the person under control so that the driver's license is not revoked

[3] In a case where the court recognizes a more minor criminal facts included in the criminal facts charged within the scope consistent with the facts charged, if it deems that there is no concern that the exercise of the defendant's right of defense may be seriously disadvantaged in light of the progress of hearing, the court may, ex officio, recognize facts charged different from those stated in the indictment even if the indictment has not been modified.

[4] The case holding that the facts charged as a crime of acceptance of bribe can be acknowledged as a crime of acceptance of bribe without changing the indictment

[1] Article 129 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 129 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 254 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [4] Articles 129 and 131 of the Criminal Act, Articles 254 and 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1568 delivered on September 25, 1984 (Gong1984, 1760) Supreme Court Decision 91Do364 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1218) Supreme Court Decision 93Do2962 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994, 1372), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 1995 (Gong195, 3458), Supreme Court Decision 94Do3029 delivered on September 23, 196 (Gong196, 7039, 1979, 97Do3979, 1969, 97Do39799 delivered on April 17, 197)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Taesung, Attorneys Lee Hong-woo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 98No2735 delivered on June 2, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period are examined as well.

1. Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that the defendant received money from the non-indicted in response to the solicitation that the driver's license should not be revoked, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. Bribery is the process of performing official duties and the trust of the society, which is protected by the legal interest and protection of the law, and therefore, the bribe is not a violation of duty, solicitation, time of receiving money or goods, and before and after the act of performing official duties. Therefore, the "duty" referred to in the crime of bribery includes not only the duty prescribed by the law, but also the duties related thereto, and duties related thereto, and duties that are not actually performed according to the division of duties in the past or in the future, but also all duties of public officials such as duties under the general authority and authority of the law. (See Supreme Court Decision 94Do3022 delivered on January 23, 1996) According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, the defendant prepared all documents related to the regulation of drinking driving while working as the Hongcheon Police Station and the traffic guidance police officer, and prepared all documents related to the regulation of the driver's license of the police station to which the defendant belongs, who received the money from the non-indicted victim, to whom the defendant did not receive the money from the defendant.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that applied the defendant to the crime of acceptance of bribe is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of bribery.

3. In a case where a court recognizes a more minor criminal facts included in the criminal facts charged within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged, if it deems that there is no concern over causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense in light of the progress of trial, it may, ex officio, recognize the facts charged different from the facts charged as stated in the indictment even if the indictment has not been modified (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1889, Nov. 14, 1997).

The crime of acceptance of bribe recognized by the court below as guilty is identical to the facts charged in this case and included in the charged facts charged, and according to the records, it can be seen that the court of first instance and the court of original instance have sufficiently deliberated on the defendant's acceptance of bribe during the trial process from the court of original instance to the court below. Thus, even if the defendant is punished as such crime, it cannot be deemed that there is a risk of causing substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right of defense. Thus, the argument in the ground of appeal that the defendant

The grounds of appeal are without merit.

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)