All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground of appeal, since the court of final appeal ex post facto examines the judgment of the appellate court, matters which are not subject to an adjudication in the appellate court are not subject to the scope of adjudication in the court of final appeal, and thus, the defendant cannot be considered as the grounds of final appeal for reasons other than those which the appellate court did not claim as grounds of appeal

(2) The lower court’s assertion that there was a misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection and a violation of the precedents in the instant case where Defendant A appealed on the sole ground of unfair sentencing on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As to the matters not considered to be subject to adjudication by the lower court in the first instance judgment, Defendant A merely goes against the appellate court’s final appeal, and thus, cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for final appeal.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, there is no error in the judgment below as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the argument that there is an error in the misapprehension of facts as to the sentencing conditions and the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, which exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence is an assertion of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is declared, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the sentencing

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court’s assertion that there is a misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the establishment of the crime of bribery assistance in the lower judgment is subject to an adjudication in this case where Defendant B appealed only on the ground of unfair sentencing.