First, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of this case in the first instance court's decision maintained by the court below even if the records of this case were prepared, and there is an error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to the violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

Second, among the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, the part that the defendant is not a public official as referred to in the crime of bribery is considered.

The term "public official" under the Criminal Act refers to a person who is engaged in the affairs of the State, local government, and public corporations equivalent thereto based on the legal basis and whose contents of labor are not limited to a mere mechanical physical physical body (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Ma99 delivered on December 14, 1961). According to the records, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have engaged in simple mechanical or physical labor as he is obviously engaged in the affairs concerning the re-sale of lots in this case and the affairs concerning the payment of the proceeds thereof, while he is in charge of the disposal of state property under the jurisdiction of the State, as an employee of the State, as a cultural property management and operation division (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Ma99 delivered on December 14, 1961). Therefore, it is just to have sentenced Defendant 1 to be convicted of having received a bribe in connection with the above duties, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)