the name of a crime recognized against A: Specific crimes

Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Bribery (Bribery)

(b) Violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act;

2. (a) B

3. (a)(b) D

Attorney FR, FS, FT

Attorney FU (Korean Charter for Defendant B)

Law Firm N (For Defendant D)

Attorney FV, FW,O, FX, FY, FZ, GA, P, GB, GC

Attorney Q Q (Defendant D)

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of the instant selective charge on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aiding and abetting in the Criminal Act, intentional act of aiding and abetting in the crime of aiding and abetting, property profit in the crime of bribery

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements

3. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just that the court below found Defendant D guilty of all the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by exceeding the degree of burden of proof and proof as to the Voluntaryness of statement, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by failing to satisfy the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Justices Cho Jae-chul