All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The allegation that the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and C contains an error of law regarding the deliberation of sentencing and the method of determining sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the Defendants were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Defendant

A appealed the judgment of the first instance court and argued only unfair sentencing, and the lower court did not ex officio consider the matters alleged in the grounds of appeal as the subject of adjudication.

In such a case, the lower court’s assertion that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty relationship in bribery is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

A. The duties referred to in the crime of bribery include not only the duties under the laws and regulations, but also the acts closely related to, or the acts of practice or actual involvement in, the duties.

In addition to the formal aspect of whether a specific act falls under the duties of a public official, it should be determined in consideration of the practical aspect of whether it is reasonably necessary in relation to the duties of a public official in performing duties.

In addition, the determination of whether a public official’s profit constitutes a bribe as an unfair benefit related to his/her duties ought to be made by taking into account various circumstances, such as the duty contents of the public official, the relationship between the public official and the provider of the profit, whether there exists a special private relationship between both parties, the difference of profit, and the details and timing of exchanging profit (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1797, Mar. 24, 201, etc.).