The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant received 2 million won from G, 2 million won from G, and 5 million won from G, but the Defendant did not have any intent to borrow from surgery expenses, etc. and receive them as a bribe, and there was no relationship with business relationship.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the acceptance of bribe from G and I.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment with labor for October suspension, two years of community service order 120 hours, and additional collection amounting to 8.45 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts; 1) The legal interest of the crime of bribery is to be directly protected by the fair performance of duties and the trust in society. As such, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established if the number of money of a public official’s duties and money is in a quid pro quo relationship as a whole, and there is no need to consider the existence of solicitation and the quid pro quo relationship, and there is no need to specify the act of performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13584, Dec. 23, 2010). If a public official receives money or other benefits from a person subject to his/her duties from the person subject to his/her duties, he/she is deemed to have received money or other benefits from the former public official, and it is deemed that the same is merely a quid pro quo quo in light of the social norms, or it is obviously recognizable that personal friendly relations is obviously related to a public official’s duties.