The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the Defendant merely borrowed money from J and P with a personal-friendly relationship, and did not receive a bribe in relation to his/her duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant is against unreasonable sentencing, the punishment imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment, fine of ten million won, additional collection of 16.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In this case of determining a mistake of facts, the Defendant recognized the receipt of money as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the money received by the defendant is a loan bribe or a bribe, and whether the defendant received money in connection with his duties.

In the context of the crime of bribery, if the accepter claims that he/she has received money from the accepter but not received the money from the accepter, whether or not the accepter actually borrows the money shall be determined by taking full account of all the objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, process of delivery, and method of receiving the money from the accepter, the relationship between the accepter and the accepter, the position and work experience of the accepter, the need for borrowing the money, the possibility of borrowing the money from the person other than the accepter, the amount of the borrowed money and the circumstances of the accepter, the economic situation of the accepter and the amount of the borrowed money, the amount of the borrowed money, the amount of the borrowed money, the amount of the guaranteed money, the amount of the guaranteed money, the contract for redemption of the principal and interest of the accepter, and the possibility

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4386, Sept. 30, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). Meanwhile, whether a certain profit gained by a public official constitutes “brain” as an unfair profit having a quid pro quo relationship with a public official’s duty, is the content of the relevant public official’s duty and duty.