1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant A of all of the charges of bribery and the commitment to bribe (excluding the part not guilty of the first instance court’s grounds) among the charges of this case against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the part of the amendment of indictment or inconsistency with the reasoning is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant asserts that there was no error in the judgment of the court below as the subject of judgment ex officio.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant B was guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant C was guilty of this case’s facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the first instance court’s grounds) on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

4. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.