To offer a bribe, it is not necessary that the offender must have a specific identity (civil servant). While the counterpart of offering a bribe to a civil servant is the corruptive conduct of a civil servant accepting a bribe, the elements of offense, criminal sanction, and reduction or exemption of sentence for offering a bribe are different from the elements of offense, criminal sanction, and reduction or exemption of sentence for a civil servant accepting a bribe. Thus, the conduct of offering a bribe is distinct from the corruptive conduct of accepting a bribe in nature. The provisions in Article 11, Paragraph 1, of the Statute for the Punishment of Corruption during the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (hereinafter “The Statute”) were set forth to provide an additional sanction on a person who performs civil duty under the law or under commission by a government agency. The provisions in Article 11, Paragraph 1, of the Statute were not set forth to change the nature of the bribing conduct. Even when the bribing conduct may be separately governed by Article 12, Paragraph 2, of the Statute or other statutes which provide a lenient sentence when the bribing conduct is not serious, and the bribe demanded within a specific time is less than NT$ 3000, the conduct of offering a bribe is still distinct from the corruptive conduct of accepting a bribe. Thus, Article 15, Paragraph 2, of the Public Functionaries Appointment Act is not applicable to the conduct of offering a bribe. J.Y. Interpretation No. 96, which held that the conduct of offering a bribe prescribed in Article 122, Paragraph 3, of the Criminal Code does not constitute an offense of malfeasance, is consistent with the substance of this Judicial Interpretation and shall therefore be upheld.