1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 of the ground of appeal, in a case of the bribery, the fact that the consignee received the money from the accepter but instead received the money from the accepter, whether or not the accepter actually borrows the money should be determined by taking full account of all objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, reason for delivery, and method of the accepter’s receipt of the money from the accepter, the relationship between the accepter and the accepter, his position and occupation, his career, the necessity of the borrower, the possibility of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter, the amount of the borrowed money and the circumstances of the accepter, the economic situation of the accepter and the estimated economic profit related to the accepter, the amount of the loan, the guarantee, the time limit for payment, and the possibility of compulsory execution.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do4386, Sept. 30, 201; 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant, an employee of the Korea Telecommunication Co., Ltd., signed a supply contract with the said company, received the total amount of KRW 55 million from X representative Y as a bribe in relation to his/her duties, not a loan.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, it is not practically impossible to provide all laws and regulations related to criminal punishment without exception due to the complex and diversification of social phenomenon, the limit of professional and technical capabilities of the National Assembly, and the limitation of the ability to adapt to the passage of time.