2. In the first instance of the judgment, the following facts are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) there was no past history of criminal punishment or criminal punishment heavier than the fine for the same crime; (c) the fact that the Defendant’s family members and branch members wished to have the Defendant’s prior wife rapidly.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant who is a public official demands a bribe equivalent to 10% of the total construction cost and the additional construction cost to a construction business operator in relation to his duties under the pretext of supervision of electrical construction and provision of convenience in supervision, etc., and the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant first demands a bribe actively on several occasions by telephone to the construction business operator, the amount of the requested bribe is large, and the bribery amount is a large amount of the bribe amount, and the bribery need to be punished strictly as a crime that damages the public official's non-purchase and social trust.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc. as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.