All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

A. As to the aiding and abetting part of Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”), around May and June 2013, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that Defendant B was aware of the fact that there was money in the envelope that Defendant B received from the National Intelligence Service around May and June 2013 (hereinafter “National Fixed Number”).

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error of the lower court’s judgment on the selection and probative value of evidence, which is a substantial judgment of the fact-finding court.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the aiding and abetting Defendant C’s violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Loss on National Treasury, etc.) from May 2013 to April 2014, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, is insufficient to deem that Defendant C knew and aided and abetted Defendant C to deliver the NIS’s budget to the National Treasury by embezzlement of the former president (hereinafter “former president”) and S., and determined that the first instance judgment convicting Defendant C of this part of the facts charged was reversed and acquitted.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error of the lower court’s judgment on the selection and probative value of evidence, which is a substantial judgment of the fact-finding court.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. From May 2013, Defendant B and C