The legitimacy of bribery penalty is to protect the nation's administrative function from influences outside of the system which results in corruption and ruin the public's trust. The Supreme Court, instead of taking previous legal standards- the authority of the position as the official act- took ”close relevance or substantial impact” for the verdict. It turned the behaviors ”outside” of the position to the behaviors of the position and prosecuted the case by facts relating to the criminal elements. The underlying question is whether it lives up to the name of legal interests or is just an analogy? The teleological expansion of interpretation for constitutive requirements of exemption from criminal penalty or nonintervention of criminal prevention cannot solve corruption issues but just cause the effect of punitive sanction, let alone the cost of sacrificing crimes and punishment stipulated by law and principle of legality and ultima ratio of penalty for interpretation.