The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case’s determination by the lower court are the professors of D University Environment Preservation Department, and the Defendant was commissioned by the Korea Environment Corporation as a member of the design deliberation subcommittee (specialized fields: construction and landscaping) within the Design Advisory Committee on May 2010, and was selected as a member of the Design Advisory Committee on February 8, 201 and examined design documents on February 8, 201, and the design documents were selected as a member of the Deliberation Committee on Construction of “G Project” among the participating enterprises, and the Defendant

3. On June 16, 198, the company received cash worth KRW 10 million from its employees to the effect of its case.

The prosecutor is a member of the Design Advisory Committee who is deemed a public official by the defendant under subparagraph 2 of Article 45 of the Construction Technology Management Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

On the other hand, the Defendant was prosecuted as a crime of acceptance of bribe.

As to this, the lower court did not regard the member of the design deliberation subcommittee of the Korea Environment Corporation as a member of the design deliberation subcommittee, unless he is separately commissioned as a member of the design deliberation committee. The Defendant was commissioned as a member of the design deliberation subcommittee of the Korea Environment Corporation, and the Defendant was not commissioned as a member of the design deliberation committee of the Korea Environment Corporation. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a public official under the provisions of this case, and thus, cannot be deemed as the subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe, reversed the

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. The purport of the provision of this case is that when applying the provisions of bribery under the Criminal Act, a member who is not a public official among the members of the contracting authority under Article 5-2 of the Act shall be regarded as a member of the Design Advisory Committee in order to enhance the fairness and transparency of the deliberation of the Design Advisory Committee.