The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (limited to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the public officials in charge of the purport that the defendant is able to receive convenience while entering into a subcontract for several projects ordered at Yangsan City, giving merchandise coupons and cash to the department store, entertainment was offered to the public officials, and the Yangsan City offered total of KRW 90 million to B, who is the director in charge of the bidding and management of the above I in order to accept a subcontract for the works ordered to the I Co., Ltd. in a lump sum. The crime of offering of bribe is not easy; the crime of offering of bribe considerably undermines the general public's confidence in the fairness and integrity of the public; and the crime of offering of money and valuables related to the construction Co., Ltd. is considerably damaged by the crime of giving and receiving property related to the construction Co., Ltd., which is likely to be connected to the insolvent construction.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant fully acknowledges and reflects his criminal act, the amount of bribe granted to a public official is relatively large, and some of the public officials seems to have failed to respond to the request of the public official, and the fact that there is no previous conviction or same record beyond the fine.

In addition to all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments in this case, including the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant, and the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relationship, etc., considering the equity of the punishment imposed on the accomplice, the lower court’s decision does not seem to be too heavy on the sentence imposed on the accomplice.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.