(b) Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

C. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)

D. Violation of the Act on Visiting and Sale, etc.

E. Violation of the Act on Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities

(f) Offering a bribe;

G. Violation of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds

(h) Forging a private document;

(i) Exercising forged private documents;

(j) Delivery of a third party bribe;

A

2. B

3. b. C

Attorney MX (Defendant 2, 3)

1. Examining the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly adopted by the reasoning of the original judgment, it is reasonable to determine that all of the facts of the instant indictment (excluding the part of innocence) were guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, such as the logical and empirical rules, thereby misunderstanding facts beyond the limit of the attention of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the act of deception in fraud, i.e., mistake, and the act of deception.

In addition, considering the following circumstances: Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, intelligence, and environment; relationship with victims; motive and means of each of the instant crimes; and the outcome thereof; and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the court of first instance, which sentenced Defendant A to imprisonment with labor for 22 years, cannot be said to be extremely unfair, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor in light of the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the records, violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes among the facts charged against Defendant A, based on the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, (Misappropriation of trust)

It is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant B and C on the ground that all of the facts charged against Defendant B and C were not proven as a crime. It is reasonable to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant B and C not guilty by violating the legal rules of logic and experience, such as the allegation of the grounds for appeal, thereby going beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on intent to obtain unjust enrichment or joint principal offender.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Park Jung-hwa