The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant A of each of the charges against Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust), occupational embezzlement, D, GN, offering of a bribe for Defendant B, offering of a bribe for Defendant A and D among the charges against Defendant B, violation of the A and D Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust), violation of the A and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) among the charges against Defendant C, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery of Trust), and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust), among the charges against Defendant C against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and 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 doctrine on the determination standard of duty relationship and compensation relationship in the crime of bribery, the degree of proof of evidence to be determined, the scope of acceptance of bribery, the method of determining the amount of evidence containing personal information by an investigative agency, the method of collecting directors’ remuneration, and duties and property damage in the crime of occupational breach of trust, the limit of consent and approval by stockholders, and the consignment

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the offering of a bribe related to C, BM, BI, BO, F, E, and CK (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) among the facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.