1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant C’s grounds for appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant C of the charge of breach of trust as to “the fee according to the COAE supply quantity of COAE supplied by Defendant A to BY,” and “the fee according to the supply quantity of TRAE supplied by the said AG Co., Ltd. to the said AG Co., Ltd.,” on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free conviction doctrine in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the quid pro quo between unlawful solicitation and money acquired in the crime of

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant D’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found Defendant D guilty of charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant H’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted Defendant H of the charge of taking property in breach of trust regarding the money that Defendant H gave after January 5, 2012. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of taking property in breach of trust, contrary to what is alleged in

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or not less than ten years.