The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles purported that the Defendant sent his check to the 7rd single presiding judge of the Seoul Administrative Court and did not request a favorable judgment. While the check was not perceived as “brain”, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, whether a public official’s interest in an assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles constitutes “Bribery” as an unfair benefit with a quid pro quo-related relationship, the relevant public official’s duty and relation to a provider of benefits, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, the degree of profit, and the circumstance and timing of receiving benefits, etc. In light of the fact that the bribery is protected by the law as a legal interest of the fairness in performing his/her duties and the social trust and the impossibility of taking advantage of his/her duties, whether a public official’s interest in receiving benefits is suspected of being fair in performing his/her duties due to receiving benefits from the society’s general public (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17797, Mar. 24, 201). The lower court’s determination of whether the crime of bribery is established is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Seoul Administrative Court. In other words, the Defendant, as a party to the relevant action seeking revocation of disposition, sent a cashier’s check to the Seoul National Court, which had influence on the Defendant.