(b) Acts relating to the prevention of corruption and the establishment and operation of the Committee on Rights and Interests of Citizens;

violation of applicable rate

(c) Acceptance of bribe;

(d) Dried trees;

E. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds

F. Violation of the Political Funds Act

2. E;

Attorney in charge L

1. Examining the reasoning for Defendant A’s appeal in light of evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the original judgment by the original judgment, it is justifiable to determine that Defendant A’s appeal constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) among the facts charged against Defendant A on the ground as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and a violation of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Committee on the Prevention of Corruption and the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Interests, all of which were found guilty on the ground as stated in the judgment of the lower court. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship between duties in bribery and remuneration, etc.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the records on the reasoning of the original judgment as to Defendant A’s taking advantage of the fact that Defendant A’s taking of part in the course of taking part in Defendant A and the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds against Defendant B, it is reasonable to maintain the first instance judgment which rendered a verdict of innocence on the ground that Defendant A’s taking part in the facts charged against Defendant A, based on the same reason as the judgment of the lower court, was the intention of taking part in the prosecution, violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, and violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Criminal Proceeds, and violation of the law on the illegal solicitation in the crime of taking part in the crime of taking part in Defendant E, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. There is no violation of the law by exceeding the limit of free conviction or by misapprehending the legal principles on unjust solicitation in the crime of taking part in the crime of taking part in trust.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the original court, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the statement of reasons for appeal as to the guilty part against Defendant A.

B. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records with respect to the refusal of the application for permission to change the indictment, the measure of denying the application for permission to change the indictment by the public prosecutor who added each of the preliminary facts of Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement and aiding and abetting Defendant E’s occupational embezzlement on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no illegality such as misapprehending the legal principles on the change of indictment or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de