A. Error of mistake

The Defendant’s KRW 20 million was merely the case of orders to install the pumps of this case or the audit indication based on the height during the process of examining the pumps, but the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant was the meaning of solicitation for the provision of convenience in the process, such as the supply and installation of the pumps of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unfair sentencing

The sentencing of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, a fine of twenty million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

1) The legal interest of bribery is the process of performing duties, social trust in relation thereto, and the impossibility of performing duties is protected, and there is no need to make a special solicitation in recognizing the bribe of money and valuables provided and received, since the bribery does not require any solicitation or unlawful act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4940, Jan. 21, 2000). Even if there is a mistake of fact as alleged by the Defendant, even if there is a mistake of fact as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the judgment of the court below directly or indirectly affects the text of the judgment and the evaluation of the constituent elements of the instant crime.

2) Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, namely, ① A made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that the Defendant had a KRW 20 million to the effect that the Defendant had a contract for an order to install the pumps of this case and for the smooth handling of the remaining procedures in the future (No. 5043 of the investigation record). Although there is a possibility of punishment for himself, A’s above statement is highly reliable, and ② D’s business director was in charge of the practice of the pumps of this case. ② The maximum* also stated that A was able to assist the Defendant in the process of the above construction, as well as the purport that A would have a problem in the process of the above construction (* the witness statement at the trial*). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, A’s assertion that the Defendant had a contract for the installation of the pumps of this case, such as a mistake of facts, can only be acknowledged as having been made in the future.

B. Regarding the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

1) There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession to substitute the instant crime from the beginning of the investigation, that the Defendant did not actively demand a bribe recipient, that the Defendant was made a solicitation exceeding the scope of ordinary product promotional activities from D in selecting D as a contracting party to the instant pumps, or that such solicitation does not seem to have been selected as a contracting party to the instant contract, and that the Defendant has the wife and children who should support the Defendant.

2) On the other hand, the crime of this case is a matter of accepting a bribe from the representative director of an enterprise closely related to his duties, even though there is a duty to perform his duties with integrity and fairness as a public official of the military administration, and its nature is not good. The acceptance of a bribe is a serious crime that seriously damages the fairness of official duties and the trust of the general society. It is a serious criminal that must be eradicated in this society. 20 million won of the amount of bribe received by the defendant.

In light of the fact that it is a considerable amount, the defendant cannot be held liable for it.

3) The lower court’s sentence is reasonable even if the Defendant’s age, living environment, motive and background of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as circumstances after the crime, are considered. The Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The appeal by a defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Ho-young

Judges Secretary-General;