The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant did not bear an obligation to G, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant directly received KRW 20 million, which D remitted to G.

Therefore, the simple acceptance of bribe under Article 129 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and as long as the defendant did not receive an illegal solicitation, the crime of acceptance of bribe by the third party under Article 130 of the Criminal Act cannot be established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and fine of 40 million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

In a case where a public official receives a bribe and a public official is in a relationship that can be evaluated as being directly received by a public official, such as a case where another person receives a bribe, and thus the said other person is exempted from expenditure, etc., the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act is not the crime of offering a bribe to a third person under Article 130 of the Criminal Act, but the crime of offering a bribe is established

I would like to say.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the judgment of the court below and the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998; 2001Do7056, Apr. 9, 2002; 2003Do8077, Mar. 26, 2004) are examined.