The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, 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

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. With respect to the bribery of a third party and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), the bribery does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of the received money and valuables since the fairness of the performance of duties by the public official, the social trust in the performance of duties, and the purchase of the defective value of duties is the legal interest of the public official, and it does not require any solicitation or unlawful act related to his duties. Moreover, it does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of the received money and valuables. It is sufficient that the money and valuables were received in relation to the performance of duties and there is no need to have a relation with an individual act of duties and a quid pro quo (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3579, Oct. 12, 201, etc.). Whether a certain profit earned by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unfair profit related to the performance of duties, the relationship between the public official and the provider of profits, whether there exists a special private-friendly relationship between each other, and the process and time of receiving profits.