A. Defendant 1) Although the Defendant did not have conspiredd with F or L, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant conspiredd with F or L, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Although the Defendant did not agree with R to bear U operating expenses of the U.S., or agreed to allow R to receive advertising materials ordered from Mtesan viewing, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The Defendant’s receipt of money from V was paid eight pages of the newspaper 24 pages published by U.S. for personal use as a space for daily advertisement. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant received money from Mtesan advertising contract as a witness, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. However, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the Defendant’s receipt of money from Mtesan among the 24 pages published by U.S. as the Defendant was a witness of Mtesan advertising contract. (3) Although the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s receipt of money from Mtesan under the oath from November 206 to June 2010.