violation of the law of prohibition, and bribery after fraudulent action;

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on such premise are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that all of the statements made by the lender 0 of money corresponding to the facts charged of violation of the Political Funds Act and the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) are reliable.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, 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

2. Examining the grounds of appeal No. 3 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s duties as a member of the National Assembly and the Defendant’s money received from T is justifiable on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. Examining the ground of appeal No. 4 in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that each crime of bribery as stated in the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) is an inclusive crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Cho Jong-hee