A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are consistent with the fact that the Defendant purchased an insurance contract on the recommendation of H, but there was no intent to offer a bribe, and H was in a position unrelated to the Defendant’s business operation. As a result of the conclusion of the insurance contract, H’s fees received from the Defendant’s wife were remuneration for insurance sales activities and customer management, and the Defendant did not make any unlawful solicitation to H, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a bribe in relation to H’s duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The crime of acceptance of bribe is established in a case where the public official’s duties and money are in a quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to consider the existence of solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties.

On the other hand, in the crime of bribery, the duties of a public official include not only the duties under the control of the law, but also the duties closely related to the duties, such as customs or actual duties under the jurisdiction of the decision-making authority, and the duties that may assist or affect the decision-making authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do378, Apr. 17, 1997; 2004Do1442, May 28, 2004).

The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is determined.