The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment and six million won of fine and additional collection in each of six million won) is too unreasonable;

2. On September 30, 1979, the Defendant was appointed to the Maritime Affairs and Security Office as Grade 9 and was on duty in good faith at the Maritime Affairs and Security Office until the time of retirement on June 30, 2012.

The defendant does not actively demand and accept the bribe of this case.

In addition, the Defendant acquired only one million won out of the amount of the accepted acceptance of this case 6 million won, and the remainder was divided into the public officials of the same military administration or used for the revolving cost.

The defendant must support his wife. The defendant's wife needs nursing care because he was not in the second degree of physical disability, and there are many medical expenses such as nursing expenses and hospital expenses. However, the defendant already retired from retirement, and the judgment below's punishment becomes final and conclusive, resulting in the loss of half of retirement allowances and economic difficulties.

The public officials of the Maritime Police Agency, who were the full-time employees of the defendant, want to find the defendant's preference.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, even in the year 195, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the crime of bribery.

The defendant ordered by the military administration and requested the P, a contractor in charge of the improvement of the environment of the O elementary school fences of the Gun in charge of the management and supervision of the defendant, so that he can supply synthetic timber to P, and received from B 6 million won in return, and only one million won out of the above 6 million won was used individually by the defendant.

Even if the money is actually received from the defendant, the whole amount of the money is considered to have been received from the defendant.

The defendant's crime has significantly undermined the general trust in the fairness of the performance of public official's duties.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.