2. The judgment of the court below is a favorable circumstance where the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case against the bribe payer in the first instance who did not have any criminal power and violated the wrong, returned 50 million won at the trial, and voluntarily paid the full amount of the surcharge according to the judgment of the court below, the defendant's service as a long-term public official, and the defendant's family and branch members want to take the preference against the defendant.

However, even though the defendant is a public official requiring high integrity, he received a bribe in the form of participation in speculative projects using his status, and solicits its subordinate employees to promptly obtain permission to engage in development activities on the above business, and actually offered a bribe to which permission was granted, the defendant's public confidence in integrity and fairness in the performance of duties required due to the defendant's crime has been significantly damaged. Upon the commencement of the investigation of this case, the defendant attempted to destroy evidence by means of inducing a false statement on the part of the bribe payer.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant records and pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed unreasonable to have exceeded, or maintain, the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3...