The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

“Matters pertaining to the duties of public officials” under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes include not only acts closely related to the duties under the statutes, but also acts closely related to the duties, customs or actual involvement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6789, Jan. 28, 2010). “Receiving money and valuables or benefits as to good offices belonging to the duties of public officials” means accepting money and valuables, etc. under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the duties of public officials. It is more specific that the matters to be mediated for the establishment of good offices fall under the duties of public officials, and the pretext of receiving money and valuables, etc. is related to good offices of such matters (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2300, Jun. 12, 2008). Examining in light of the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the facts charged in this case is justifiable, or there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.