All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the following grounds.

(1) As it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B received KRW 150 million from A on November 20, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 6, 2013, at least KRW 200 million, Defendant B’s reasonable selling price under AW lending 402, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 6, 2013, is at least KRW 50 million, Defendant B recognized the bribe amount received at a discount, as KRW 50 million.

(2) Defendant B received KRW 8 million in total from A around May 201, 201, around March 201, around March 2012, around September 2012, around February 2012, and around February 2013, respectively.

(3) Of the above 8 million won, even if the amount of KRW 2 million received by Defendant B around May 201, 201 is a nominal amount of money of KRW 8 million, occupational connection and quid pro quo is recognized.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 calculation of the amount of a bribe, intent to accept bribe, performance-related performance, and credibility of statements.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant D, the lower court, on the grounds the same as indicated in its reasoning, accepted KRW 30 million in cash from Defendant D from February 2, 2014 to May 2014 as a bribe, on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

In light of the facts charged against Defendant D, the first instance judgment that convicted Defendant D of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act”) was affirmed as it is.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

3. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant F, the crime of bribery is established.