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 not timely filed).

1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s final appeal, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charges on the ground that there was no proof of the crime as to the part of the facts charged against Defendant A related to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), bribery related to entertainment equivalent to the Jeju accommodation expenses, abuse of authority, interference with the exercise of rights, occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses, occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses, occupational embezzlement related to wages such as Council members EH, occupational embezzlement related to council members EH, and violation of the Act on the A’s Punishment of Specific Crimes related to the crime related to BD (Bribery), occupational embezzlement related to travel expenses, occupational embezzlement related to A’s travel expenses, occupational embezzlement related to the full-time president’s wage, occupational embezzlement related to the Defendant C’s travel expenses, occupational embezzlement related to the Defendant C’s travel expenses, and Defendant D’s third party bribe grant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, 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 aggravation of specific crimes (Bribery), the crime of accepting bribe, the crime of abusing authority, the crime of abusing authority, the crime of embezzlement in the course of business, and the establishment of the

2. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (except for the portion without charge) against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

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 regarding the bribe of the crime of accepting a bribe, the intention of unlawful acquisition of the crime of embezzlement on duty, and the functional control of a