All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor on the receipt of a bribe of KRW 39 million from August 31, 2006 to July 31, 2008, the crime of acceptance of bribe under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act applies to the public official’s acceptance of a bribe in connection with his/her duties. In addition, in light of the fact that Article 130 of the Criminal Act provides that if a public official gives a bribe to a third party in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, the crime of acceptance of bribe shall be punished for the crime of providing a third-party bribe. In cases where a public official directly receives a bribe and allows a third party deliver a bribe to a third party without receiving a bribe, such as in cases where the third party receives a bribe as a private person or proxy of a public official, the crime of acceptance of bribe is established under Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, limited to cases where the third party can be assessed as having

(2) The court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant A had the nature of an organization as a third party separate from Defendant A and its executive officers, based on the factual basis as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the promotion committee for the establishment of CK Housing Development and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as “First promotion committee”) has the nature of an organization as a third party distinct from that of Defendant A and its executive officers. The court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the first promotion committee’s receipt of operating funds from Defendant C was not deemed as being directly received by Defendant A

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, finding facts against logical and empirical rules or misapprehending the legal principles on the acceptance of bribe.