1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court 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 admissibility of evidence of the expert statement containing the Defendant’s statement, and the duty relationship and the quid pro quo in the bribery, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the argument that there was a mistake of facts as to the nature of discretionary project costs and the purpose of receiving money and valuables from the Defendant constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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