The appeal is dismissed.

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

Whether the amount received by a public official constitutes a bribe as an unfair benefit with a quid pro quo relationship is determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content of the relevant public official’s duties, the relationship between a provider of duties and a benefit, whether there exists a special relationship between both parties, and the degree of and timing for receiving benefits, etc. In light of the fact that the crime of bribery is a fair performance of duties and the trust in society, whether the crime of bribery is suspected of being fair in the performance of duties from the general public due to the receipt of such benefit by a public official is one of the criteria for determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5438, Sept. 18, 200; 2003Do1332, Feb. 13, 2004). Meanwhile, in cases where the nature of a public official’s act as a consideration for an act of duties, as a consideration for an act of duties, and the nature of an act other than duties, is indivisible, its entire nature

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the nature of the Defendant’s 60 million won as a justifiable service fee for the prop work of P land and the nature of the consideration for good offices related to various authorizations and permissions of the instant O-building project is indivisible inasmuch as the nature of the Defendant’s 60 million won as a justifiable service fee for the prop work of P land and the nature of the consideration for good offices related to various authorizations and permissions of the instant O-building project is indivisible, and thus, the Defendant additionally collected the full amount of KRW 60 million.

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above judgment and measures of the court below are examined.