The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and the legal principles were delivered three weeks from A and B is merely a private case based on a personal-friendly relationship, and the occupational relation and consideration is not recognized, but it constitutes a bribe. In other words, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on bribery or by misapprehending the legal principles on bribery, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a suspension of qualification for one year and a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The gist of the facts charged in this part of the charges was that the Defendant served in the Namyang M&M division from November 11, 2014 to October 6, 2016.

N is a person who has been in charge of controlling illegal acts, such as construction of illegal facilities and change of land form and quality within the development restriction zone.

On April 14, 2016, the Defendant received a bribe in relation to his duties, upon receipt of a request from A and B to make a statement about G and its neighboring illegal acts on the road located in Geumyang-dong, Geumyang-dong, Geumyang-si, Geumyang-si, 219-1, G and its neighboring illegal acts, and received a bribe in relation to his duties.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

(c)

1) The relevant legal doctrine does not require a special solicitation to recognize the bribe of the received money and valuables, and there is no need for a special solicitation to accept the bribe of the received money and valuables, and there is no need to receive money and valuables as received in relation to their duties, and there is no need for a special relationship between an individual act of duties and a quid pro quo. A public official is money and valuables from a person subject to his duties.