(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes;

2. (a) B

A. As to the grounds of appeal on the duty relationship, the " duty" refers to not only the duty prescribed by the law, but also the duty related to it, and even if the duty is not practically performed according to the division of duties other than the duty in the past or to be in the future, a public official, such as the duty belonging to the general duties in the law, includes all duties to be performed by the public official according to the relevant position (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003). In addition, the " duty" includes not only the duty performed by the public official who receives the benefit, but also the case where there is no room to reduce the convenience of the person who provided the benefit in the nature or content of the duty, and the time of receiving the benefit does not necessarily be denied since the time of receiving the benefit is after the completion of the duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5135, Nov. 10, 2005, etc.).

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below held that Defendant A, who was from J such as Defendant B and D and worked together in a non-bank prosecutor 1 to 2 countries, did not actually take charge of K for the purpose of division of duties at the time when Defendant A was exempted from the debt as described in the facts charged, but at least, it constitutes a duty to be in charge of Defendant A in the future or a duty closely related to Defendant B and D’s duties, and thus exempted Defendant A from the obligation is related to Defendant A’s duties.

The Court determined that the case was.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the relation of a duty officer in the crime of bribery, by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence

B. Examining the grounds of appeal as to exemption from loans and calculation of the amount of bribe in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, the court below is just in holding that the amount of bribe received by Defendant A was equivalent to the amount of the debt at the rate of the size of the land allocated based on the purchase price of the instant land, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating the amount of debt exemption or the amount of bribe, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

2. Defendant B’s grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the amount equivalent to the above money was a bribe in relation to its duties, on the ground that F provided a bribe equivalent to KRW 6,5260,000,000, including the test cost, furniture, and the purchase price of home appliances for the instant G (which seems to have been mistakenly stated in the lower judgment’s judgment’s H’) and that Defendant B received the above money as a bribe. Examining in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination was made

The judgment is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on additional collection, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

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

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Yong-deok