本案中，对于如何认定王某的受贿数额，存在两种不同意见。第一种意见认为，王某从李某处实际取得 的是现金，故王某收受李某的贿赂应当是李某为A、B两块手表一共支付的60万元，减去交给李某的手 表B的价值28万元，即王某收受李某贿赂32万元。李某虽为王某赴国外旅游向旅行社支付了2万元费 用，但该事项中王某并未直接收受李某的钱物，故不能认定为受贿，可以认定为王某违反廉洁纪律。第 二种意见认为，王某从李某处最终得到的是手表A，根据王某、李某事前商定的过程和最终结果，故手 表A的评估价值21万元，以及李某为两块手表支付的60万元与王某实际支付的57万元的差价3万元，为 王某的受贿所得，李某为王某支付的旅游费2万元属于财产性利益，亦应计入王某的受贿数额，因此王 某收受的贿赂为26万元。笔者同意第二种意见，分析如下。 实践中，有的行贿人为了送给国家工作人员好处，不直接送给国家工作人员财物，而是先委托国家工作 人员代为出资购买贵重物品，再多"还"给国家工作人员代为出资的钱款，并顺便将其中部分贵重物品送 给国家工作人员。这种情形下，对于犯罪对象和受贿数额的认定容易存在不同认识，笔者结合遇到的一 起案例进行分析。 王某，中共党员，国 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the legal distinctions and similarities between bribery and embezzlement in the context of a specific case involving a hospital department head and a drug dealer [1][3] - The case highlights the complexities of determining whether certain funds should be classified as unit bribery or personal embezzlement, particularly regarding the payment of 180,000 yuan for the head's daughter's salary and social insurance [2][4][6] - Different viewpoints exist on how to classify the 180,000 yuan payment, with one perspective arguing it should be considered as part of unit bribery, while another suggests it constitutes embezzlement due to the misappropriation of unit funds [3][5][7] Group 2 - The article emphasizes that for a crime to be classified as unit bribery, the funds must be controlled and owned by the unit, which was not the case in this instance [4][5] - It is argued that the 180,000 yuan payment does not qualify as embezzlement since the funds were never under the unit's control or ownership, thus not infringing on public property rights [6] - Ultimately, the article concludes that the 180,000 yuan should be classified as personal bribery for the department head, as the transaction was a result of a new agreement between him and the drug dealer [7]