The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1.(a)

The crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act is established when a public official receives, demands, or promises a bribe in connection with his/her duties, and the “duty” of a public official under the above provision includes not only the duty under the control of law, but also the act closely related to the duty, or the act under the custom or actual jurisdiction, and the act of assisting or affecting the decision-making authority.

In this regard, Article 45 subparagraph 2 of the Construction Technology Management Act provides that when applying the provisions of bribery under the Criminal Act, a member who is not a public official among the members of the Design Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Design Advisory Committee") of the contracting authority under Article 5-2 of the above Act shall be deemed to be a public official. In order to enhance the fairness and transparency of the deliberation of the Design Advisory Committee, this is intended to punish a person who is not a public official as a member of the Design Advisory Committee

In light of the contents and purpose of the relevant provisions as well as the legal principles on the scope of duties in the crime of acceptance of bribe, in cases where public officials such as state public officials or local public officials perform their duties as members of the Design Advisory Committee, even if such duties do not fall under the scope of their original duties handled by the public officials, when giving and receiving unfair money and valuables in relation to the duties of the members of the Design Advisory Committee, it shall be deemed that the acceptance of unfair money and valuables in relation to the duties performed by them pursuant to Article 1

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand.