(b) Occupational embezzlement;

C. Acceptance of bribe

D. Abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights

(e) Violation of the Political Funds Act;

(f) Offering of bribe;

2.(a) B

3.2.C

4. (f) D.

Law Firm Jinsung

Attorney Lee In-bok, and Profit Notes

Law Firm KPPPPP

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Kim Sang-hoon, and M&D

Law Firm LBBS Partners

Postal administration, in the case of Attorney Lee Il-young, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo, Kim Il-young,

2. For the defendant B:

Law Firm Professor

Attorney Park Jae-chul, Park Jae-chul, Park Jae-soo, and Gu resident

3. For Defendant D:

Attorney Stabilization, leinology, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Kim Young-young

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charges on the following grounds: (a) violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery); (b) bribery related to entertainment equivalent to Jeju accommodation expenses; (c) abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights; (d) occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses; (b) occupational embezzlement related to benefits such as council members EH; (c) occupational embezzlement related to council members EH; (d) violation of the Specific Crimes A A related to travel expenses; (c) occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses; (d) occupational embezzlement related to A; (e) occupational embezzlement related to travel expenses; (e) occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses; (e) occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses; (g) Defendant C’s occupational embezzlement related to the travel expenses; (g) Defendant A’s third party’s third party bribe; and (g) found Defendant A not guilty of the charges. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of logic and experience;

2. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the part on acquittal). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the bribe of the crime of acceptance of bribe, the intention of unlawful acquisition of occupational

The argument that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of due process and admissibility of evidence in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since Defendant A’s ground for appeal or the court below did not consider it as the subject of ex officio. Furthermore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous.

3. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Bribery) and CK-related Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Bribery) among the facts charged against Defendant B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on illegal solicitation of the crime

4. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the charge (excluding the part on acquittal). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of amendments to indictment, the principle of infinite objection, the illegal solicitation of a third party’s crime of bribery,

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Noh Tae-ok