2. The judgment of the court below is a favorable condition, such as the defendant's wrong recognition of and reflects on his/her own misconduct, the fact that there is no history of criminal punishment, and the fact that the defendant has served as a public official for a long time. However, the defendant seriously damages the public trust in society as to integrity and fairness in the performance of official duties by receiving L's bribe from an executive officer while in the position of the Mayang Man-Man Free Economic Zone Authority I in charge of overall affairs of authorization and permission of K-related business. The defendant actively demanded a bribe against the company that filed the application for permission and permission, and in particular, ordered the subordinate public official to receive a bribe for performing official duties. Although the defendant argued that he/she received a bribe for the performance of official duties, there is no evidence to support the fact that the defendant requested additional allocation of the budget to the institution or department in charge of the budget before receiving the bribe, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the defendant paid the bribe for official duties, such as the circumstance, age after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and environment, etc.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.