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. Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that “The public official receives money, valuables, entertainment, or other benefits under the pretext of soliciting or arranging the case or affairs handled by the public official” refers to the case or affairs handled by the public official. It does not include simply providing labor or convenience in connection with a case or affairs handled by the public official and receiving money, etc. in consideration thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3145, Sept. 24, 2004). However, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged on the ground that the public official violated the Attorney-at-Law Act’s respective charges on the grounds that he/she received money, etc., under the pretext of soliciting the case or affairs handled by the public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do514, Apr. 29, 2005; 2009Do3145, Apr. 29, 2008).

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act or by misapprehending the legal principles.