A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A) Defendant D Association (hereinafter “D Association”)

(B) The instant gas station site was selected as the optimal business site necessary for the construction of E through due process for the benefit of B, and the D Union purchased the instant gas station site from B to the appropriate price. Therefore, the payment of money to the Defendant thereafter is without any consideration as to whether the instant site was selected as the E site. (2) Even if the Defendant returned the amount of KRW 500,000 to B out of the KRW 100,000 that the Defendant provided to B, deeming the entire amount of KRW 100,000,000 to be the amount of the accepted bribery would be in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law

B. 1) An unreasonable sentencing sentence of Defendant A’s Defendant A’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 100 million) is too unreasonable. 2) Each sentence against the Defendants of the lower court by the Prosecutor (Defendant A: the same as above, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and a suspended sentence for three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the relevant legal principles are the legal interest protected by the law of bribery in relation to the process of performance of duties, trust in society, and the impossibility of purchasing the duties. Since there is no need to make a solicitation or an unlawful act, there is no special solicitation to recognize the bribe of the received money and valuables, it is sufficient that the money and valuables have been received in relation to the duties, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4940 delivered on January 21, 2000). In addition, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established when a public official gives and receives a bribe in relation to his/her duties, and it does not require the demand or promise of a bribe separately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do1433 delivered on November 25, 1986). Furthermore, the Defendant is specifically determined.