The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The amount actually received as a bribe is KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000, which was paid by the Defendant, who received 100,000 won in cash, and returned to I.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the whole facts charged of this case on the premise that the Defendant accepted KRW 100 million as a bribe.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of five years, fine of one hundred million won, additional collection of KRW 90 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The acceptance of a bribe as to the assertion of mistake of fact refers to the acceptance of money and valuables with the intention of acquiring it. As such, the acceptance of it is not known as a bribe but immediately after being aware that it is a bribe, or because the person who received it unilaterally takes a bribe, the acceptance did not have the intention of acquiring it, such as returning it temporarily after temporarily keeping it with the intention of returning it in view of the opportunity to be returned.

If it is recognized that a bribe was received, the bribe was received.

on the other hand, once the defendant received a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, he returned it.

Even if the crime of bribery does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery.

On the other hand, in determining whether a bribe was received with the intention to obtain it, the following circumstances should be considered: (a) the reason why the bribe was delivered; (b) whether the opportunity to return the bribe was not returned at any time; and (c) the reason why the bribe was returned (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6504, Aug. 23, 2012). 2) Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the court below’s judgment and the court below’s judgment, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated, that part of the cash 100,000

Even if this is not intended to return it to the truster, it is reasonable to view that it was paid to the first person who delivered the bribe in the process of acceptance of bribe as the truster.

Therefore, the defendant received 100 million won from I.