The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that the defendant received a total of KRW 5,500,000 from B is a fact, but the defendant was temporarily kept and returned without being accepted as the intention of acquisition.

The Defendant has no authority to conduct the public auction procedure through the Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Asset Management Corporation”) and did not actually engage in or affect the public auction procedure in its position, and thus does not have any nature related to the duties.

B. There is no fact that a child made an illegal act by telephone to M.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not constitute an illegal action after accepting the bribery, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. (i) the receipt of a bribe for determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refers to the receipt of money or valuables with the intention of acquisition. As such, the acceptance of such bribe without knowing that it is a bribe, and return it immediately after being aware that it is a bribe, or because the mineer unilaterally has a bribe, there was no intention to obtain it, such as return it temporarily after being kept in custody with the intention to return it in consideration of the opportunity to return it later.

If it is recognized that a bribe was received, the bribe was received.

on the other hand, once the defendant received a bribe with the intention of acquiring it, the defendant returned it later.

Even if the crime of bribery does not affect the establishment of the crime of bribery.

Meanwhile, in determining whether a bribe was received with intent to obtain a bribe, the background of the delivery of the bribe, whether there was no opportunity to return the bribe at any time, and the circumstances leading up to the return of the bribe should be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9003, Nov. 28, 2013, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the issue is examined.