1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The legal interest in the crime of bribery is the process of performing the duties of a public official, the trust in the society, and the impossibility of performing such duties. Since the bribery does not require any solicitation or unlawful act, there is no special solicitation to recognize the bribe of money and valuables received, it is sufficient that money and valuables have been received in connection with his duties, and there is no need to have an individual job act or a quid pro quo relationship. When a public official receives money and valuables or other benefits from a person subject to his duties, it is deemed that the money and valuables are merely an exceptional cost in light of the social norms, or it cannot be deemed that there is no connection with his duties unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is clearly recognized that a private pro rata relationship is due to the need for decentralization. If a public official received money and valuables in connection with his duties, even if he received them, such money and valuables shall become a bribe (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4940, Jan. 21, 200; 201Do379, Dec. 37, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its adopted evidence, and found that the defendant, who was a member of the personnel committee as the presidential secretary, was related to the defendant's duty, such as the verification of candidate status by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service against the non-indicted 2, who was the non-indicted 1's death money, and that the defendant was aware of the facts, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to bribery, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

In the case of bribery, the duties of a public official include not only his duties under the law, but also acts closely related to his duties, or acts of custom or actual jurisdiction (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2609, Dec. 26, 1997; 2004Do42, Nov. 10, 2005, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its adopted evidence, and held that the so-called management affairs performed by the secretary of the secretary of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office was closely related to the inspection affairs conducted by the special inspector of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18639 of Dec. 31, 2004) and it is reasonable to view that the defendant, who was in charge of the duties of the secretary of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office of the secretary office, received the gift certificates of this case from the non-indicted

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below is just in finding the circumstances recognized by the court of first instance, and judged that the defendant had already had the intention of acquisition at the time of receiving the gift certificates of this case from the non-indicted 1, and that the defendant could not be viewed as having temporarily kept the gift certificates of this case as the intention of returning the opportunity after the date, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Min Il-young