The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (the fact-finding re-transmission) M did not assign the Defendant with the fact-finding duties, who was the person in charge of the permitted practice in X gas charging department, led by himself/herself, and was in charge of the gas charging in the development-restricted zone.

Therefore, if the defendant is to give or know to L/M with a building permit, he/she will accept it simply even if there is no reason for refusal.

There is no fact that the notice was given.

In addition, the KRW 100 million paid by the defendant is paid part of the amount of KRW 200,000 for the Y land acquired by the public auction, and it is not paid as a referral for the public official's duties.

B. The case where sentencing is unfair is that M has filed a complaint with the defendant to conceal interference with the execution of official duties by his own deceptive scheme.

The defendant cooperates in the investigation of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu to the investigation agency.

Although interference with the execution of official duties by fraudulent means is limited to the practice of the industry, it is against the fact that it is wrong.

There is no significant penalty in addition to a fine.

Considering these circumstances, the sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between a public official’s good offices and a money received in exchange for a mistake of fact shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents of the relevant good offices, whether the good offices and the interested parties are pro rata relations between the good offices in question, details and timing of giving and receiving benefits, etc. However, it is sufficient that there is a comprehensive payment relationship between the good offices and the money given and received. Furthermore, in cases where the good offices and the money received by the good offices are indivisible in terms of the nature of the consideration for other acts and the consideration for other acts, it is reasonable to deem that the whole quid pro quo has the nature of the good offices as consideration