All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In the determination of bribery regarding Defendant A’s assertion of legal principles, etc. (Bribery part), the term “duty” includes not only a public official’s duty under the law, but also a public official’s act closely related to his/her duty, or an act of assisting or affecting the person who has the authority to decide and decide on duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do114, Nov. 15, 1996). According to the evidence established by the court below, K is a public corporation that continues to place a large-scale construction project, such as housing construction, and the construction owner itself is subject to competitive bidding procedures.

Even in the process of executing the awarded construction, the construction project may continue to be involved in the overall affairs of the construction project, including the formulation of a construction plan, air adjustment, the increase of construction cost following design change, the management and supervision of the construction site, and the evaluation of construction execution. Thus, the need to maintain close cooperation with the K, which is the ordering authority. Defendant A is determined to have been in a position that may affect the "right to determine the operator of the restaurant at the construction site" of Q, Inc., a corporation at the construction site, which is the contractor of the relevant apartment construction in the area, while engaging in the overall affairs of the construction project, such as apartment in the Daejeon-west, Daejeon-west Branch Project Center, implemented by K, as the head of the project group, and in the overall affairs of the construction project in the area of the apartment site, and it is reasonable to view that the O's solicitation to allow the "right to operate the restaurant at the construction site" from the construction site is an act closely related to the Defendant A's duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do845, May 9, 2012).

Defendant

A’s confession and reinforcement evidence are considered to have the same purport of the lower court that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged of bribery amounting to KRW 30 million. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment is erroneous as otherwise alleged by the Defendant A, such as misapprehending the legal doctrine on “duty-relatedness” of bribery.