The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and additional collection KRW 100 million) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, who recognized all of the instant crimes, is against the Defendant.

The defendant most of the money received from the victim was returned, and the victim did not want to be punished against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed as if the defendant had a substantial relationship with the senior public officials of the prosecution, and was received KRW 100,000 by deceiving the defendant that he would be able to conclude the investigation of the victim's offender by soliciting or arranging them, and received KRW 100,000 by deceiving him. In light of the method of crime, or the amount of receiving or deceiving the victim, etc., the crime is not good, and it is not easy that the social trust of the fairness and the purchase of the public official's duties conducted by the defendant is considerably damaged.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, no circumstance exists that the lower court’s determination of sentencing was deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination of sentencing.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relationship, motive and background of crime, means and consequence of crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is proper and too unreasonable.