All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal filed by Defendant B, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted in relation to Defendant A’s assertion of breach of trust against AP and giving of bribe among the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s finding Defendant A guilty of the charges of this case’s violation of trust and giving of bribe is just and acceptable on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

There is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the illegal solicitation of the crime of giving bribe and the crime of giving bribe in breach of trust as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal on the point of giving a bribe to Defendant B and the grounds of appeal by Defendant B

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, recognized that the money and valuables received by Defendant B from Defendant A constitutes a bribe as an unfair benefit in relation to his duties of investigation inspection and inspection, and the Defendants were aware of the fact

Recognizing that the first deliberation decision is justifiable, the Defendants’ allegation of the grounds for appeal that there was a mistake of fact or of misunderstanding of legal principles is not accepted.

Defendant

A In addition to the various circumstances described in the judgment of the court below, such as the investigation intelligence and the contents of the request related to the investigation that A provided to the Defendant B, among others, Defendant B was involved in the investigation and inspection of corruption related to the AB supply at that time, and AM, which clearly stated as AF’s staff, about various circumstances related to the instant case, is considerably closely related to the Defendant A and is disadvantageous to the Defendants.