1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to the acceptance of money and valuables from a third party, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, according to the records, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and did not assert any misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the recognition of the amount of accepted acceptance, and thereafter asserted after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and the lower court determined that there was no such error in the judgment of the first instance even if it is added, not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The above judgment of the court below is just, and in such a case, the allegation that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to recognition of the amount of bribery does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant C was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In contrast to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation due to violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) due to third party acceptance of bribe.