1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. (1) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) and the Political Fund Act, the lower court, based on the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, has credibility in the statement C and V.

Based on the judgment, the above statements were admitted as evidence, and the defendant A received 30 million won from C.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination 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 principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination

(2) Unlike simple acceptance of a bribe, prior acceptance of a bribe under Article 129(2) of the Criminal Act requires acceptance of a solicitation. Here, solicitation refers to requesting a public official to perform a certain duty, and whether the performance of such duty is illegal or not is not always always an explicit solicitation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1911, Jul. 23, 1999). In addition, in this case, there is no need to specify a job act, but a certain degree of her act must be her body, regardless of omission (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4782, Aug. 14, 2013). The lower court recognized the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and acknowledged that Defendant A received a certain amount of convenience in the construction work from C and after receiving KRW 30 million from Apr. 22, 2011 to the extent that it can be acknowledged that there is a change in the content of the order and delivery of various materials from the construction work.

It is reasonable to view it.

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

The reasoning of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below.