(b) Offering of bribe;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.;

(d) Disclosure of official secrets;

(e) Bidding interference;

(f) Violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act

(g) Destruction of evidence;

2.c.e. B

3.c. d.ma. C

4.Ma. H

5.Ma.I

6.e.K

7.E. N

8.E. This

19.Ma. Q. Q.

Attorney Kim J-jin, Justice Lee J-hee, Justice Ba-hee, Justice Mana, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Stack-hun (the national election for the defendant B)

Attorney Park Jong-chul (Pek for the defendant C)

Law Firm Man Law Firm (Defendant H and I)

Attorney Lee Lee-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm LLC (For Defendant K)

Attorney Kim Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Barun (for defendant N)

Attorney Yoon Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-hee, Park Jong-hee (for the defendant 0)

1. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted Defendant A of the violation portion of the Attorney-at-Law No. 14 No. 3 listed in the annexed Table 14 among the facts charged against Defendant A. The reasoning of the court below is not erroneous by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in the judgment of the court below and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the logic and experience rules.

Meanwhile, Defendant A appealed to the entire guilty portion of the lower judgment, but did not state the remainder in the petition of appeal or the grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal.

2. Determination on Defendant H and I’s grounds of appeal

The judgment of the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted each of the above Defendants of the facts charged on the ground as stated in its judgment. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of interference with bidding.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the court below deemed that there was no evidence of a crime as to the guilty portion among the facts charged against Defendant B among the facts charged with interfering with each bidding against Defendant B among the judgment of the court of first instance. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted, the court below did not err in the judgment of the court below against the limitation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logic and experience.

B. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant K

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant N of the facts charged against Defendant N on the ground as stated in its judgment. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on common principals. The grounds of appeal against Defendant N’s ground of appeal is with respect to Defendant N.

The judgment of the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant N of the facts charged on the ground as stated in its judgment. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the judgment below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

D. As to Defendant A and C’s interference with bidding on May 8, 2014, and the grounds of appeal against Defendant 0

The lower court maintained the first instance judgment that acquitted all of the charges on this part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its judgment. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

E. On May 2014, Defendant C’s ground of appeal as to Defendant C’s divulgence of official secrets

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its holding. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

F. As to Defendant Q’s ground of appeal on Defendant Q’s interference with bidding on May 8, 2014

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its holding. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the doctrine of logic and experience.

G. As to the ground of appeal on the destruction of evidence by Defendant Q Q

The judgment of the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its judgment. In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of the crime of destroying evidence.

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 Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa