1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of all the modified facts charged (excluding the part on which the lower court rendered a verdict of innocence and not guilty of the grounds)

In conclusion, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the duties of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”), and the amount of profit, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, by interpreting Article 84 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Urban Areas and Residential Environments (amended by Act No. 13912, Jan. 27, 2016).

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, it is justifiable for the lower court to have acquitted the Defendants on all of the violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery) due to bribery to the Specific Economic Crimes (Bribery) and the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Bribery) due to bribery to a third party, which is the revised charge, for the following reasons.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on bribery.

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