(b) Acceptance of bribe;

(c) interference with implementing official duties in a deceptive scheme;

(d) Offering a bribe;

(e) Dried trees;

A

2.(b)

B

3.2

C

4.(b)(c)

D

5. D.

E

6. (c) d. e.

F

7. (c) d. e.

G

8. (c) d.

H

Attorney EV, K (for Defendant B, private ships)

Law Firm EX (for Defendant D, private ships)

Attorney EY, FD in charge

FE, a legal entity (for Defendant E, private ships);

Attorney in charge U,W, V, F

1. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant D and G, the lower court, on the same grounds as indicated in its holding, determined that: (a) the receipt of a bribe related to the operation of AK AK test for Defendant D (except for the portion determined not guilty on the grounds of the judgment below); (b) Defendant G’s alteration of the business plan for Defendant D’s business plan (excluding the portion determined not guilty on the grounds of the judgment below); and (c) interference with the execution of a deceptive scheme related to the authorization of change of the business plan for Defendant G, and the recognition of a

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original judgment and the first instance judgment, there is no illegality of misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of the crime of acceptance of a bribe and the "illegal solicitation" in the crime of breach of trust by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. As to the acceptance of a bribe or the delivery of a bribe

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below erred by misapprehending the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes with Respect to KRW 30 million between Defendant A and Defendant E, F, G and H, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of KRW 10 million (Bribery), receipt of a bribe and delivery of a bribe between Defendant A and Defendant E, F, G and H, and violation of the Act on the AK Test between Defendants A, B and Defendant F, G, and E, and 10 million (Bribery), receipt of a bribe and delivery of a bribe, delivery of a bribe between Defendant A, B and Defendant G, and delivery of a bribe related to the receipt of a bribe and delivery of a bribe between Defendant C, D and Defendant F, and operation of the AK Test between Defendant F and G.

As to the receipt of a bribe and the issue of a bribe (except for the guilty part), the verdict of innocence was rendered on the basis that there was a lack of proof of each crime.

In fact, the selection and evaluation of the evidence conducted on the premise of recognition and its premise are belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it goes beyond the limit of the free evaluation of evidence. In light of the record of the reasoning of the original judgment, even if examining the reasoning of the original judgment, it is not erroneous in the judgment of the court below by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as the assertion of the grounds for appeal, and thereby violating the legal rules of logic and experience, thereby deviating from the limit of the free evaluation of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the principle of non-permanent and unfavorable principles, which affected the judgment.

B. Regarding the interference with the implementation of official duties by fraudulent means with regard to the issuance of review certificates of operation management regulations

Of the facts charged with Defendant P, F. G, the lower court held that: (i) the loading of the vehicle and the delayed submission of the cargo stuffed portion; (ii) the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively hearing the adopted evidence; (iii) the number of the members of the lower court did not appear to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able.

1.6. The captain of a vessel prior to the amendment by Act No. 13000) requires the head of a police station to establish a new "a vessel to direct command its operation when entering or leaving a port of this port or when there is a concern over harming the vessel," and (the main sentence of Article 9) to punish a violation, it is sufficiently possible to specify the section through the interpretation of the above provision, so it is difficult to see that the specific specification in the operation management regulation is an essential or meaningful measure to ensure the safety of passenger ships, etc., (2) it is difficult to see that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it is inappropriate to acknowledge that it is beyond the scope of "A" under the definition of the Review Committee's terms, and thus, it is difficult to establish a "a vessel to directly command its operation when it comes to a narrow waterway or when it comes to a violation of the provisions of the Rules No. 2 of the Rules No. 3 of the Committee. 2 of the Rules No. 1, 2010.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on obstructing the performance of official duties in a deceptive scheme, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. The Prosecutor appealed against Defendant D, F, G, and H on the guilty portion in the original judgment, but the Prosecutor appealed against Defendant D, F, G, and H on the guilty portion in the final judgment of the lower court. However, the Reasons for Appeal cannot be found in the appellate brief, and there is no such indication in the final appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee Ki-taik