The appeal is dismissed.

2. The judgment of the defendant is divided in depth and reflects his mistake, the defendant is not actively demanding a bribeer during the process of bribery, the defendant's method of concluding a contract and the right to make a final decision in the process of selecting a business entity does not seem to have been unilaterally exercised, and it is difficult to view that there was no record of criminal punishment other than being punished twice due to a crime of bribery, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than being punished by a fine, and the defendant voluntarily submitted it by disclosing its location in the investigation process, and he did not retain profits acquired from each of the crimes of this case by paying additional charges, etc., and the defendant has been working in a relatively sincere manner while viewing public official for a long time, and the defendant's family and the person who is the defendant wanted to have a prior position against the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had a duty to perform his duties with integrity and fairness as a viewing public official, the crime of this case is committed with respect to the acceptance of a bribe from an enterprise closely related to his duties, and the amount of bribe received over three times is more than 30 million won in total, and there is a heavy liability for such crime. Such a crime requires strict punishment as to the fairness and adequacy of official duties and the sound public trust in the society. Accordingly, the scope of the recommended sentence for each of the crimes of this case, which was enacted by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court, is two to five years in imprisonment, and the crime of bribery and the crime of acceptance of bribe in category 3.