All appeals filed against A, D and Prosecutor A and C are dismissed.

A. Regarding the fact that Defendant A and D1 provided defense services equivalent to KRW 5,500,000 for retainers to C, Defendant A and D1 were erroneous in the lower court’s judgment recognizing this part of the facts charged and convicted Defendant A and D of facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles on the lower court’s judgment, although it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act of appointing Defendants was related to C’s duties as a bribe case. ② Defendant A and around December 13, 2012 and around July 16, 2013, based on the following factors: (a) Defendant A’s act was revealed in the instant case related to the delivery of KRW 2,00,000 to C; (b) his/her statement attitude and the purport of the 2013Do9866, supra; (c) Defendant A and Defendant D’s act of giving credibility in the statement was not possible; and (d) Defendant A and Defendant D’s act of unfair sentencing was erroneous on the grounds of this judgment.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (related to the indication of the intent to offer a bribe in September 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant A), the lower court acquitted Defendant A on the grounds that the Defendant was aware of the facts alleged by R on September 2012, 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant A, on the date of the crime of offering a bribe in question. However, in full view of the statements of reliable B and R, the lower court may fully recognize this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) In so doing, the lower court sentenced Defendant A and C on unreasonable sentencing (related to the Defendant and C).