All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to each of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the defense counsel in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to maintain the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant conjunctive facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds that the Defendant received bribe by being provided “an opportunity to provide advice or other services, and receive the fees,” taking advantage of the status of a public official belonging to the Ministry

In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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 intent and objects of the crime of accepting a bribe, the nature of performance related to duties, the consideration thereof, the admissibility of the statement protocol, the principle of court-oriented trial and the principle of direct deliberation, and the Regulation of Legislative Affairs.

The Supreme Court's decision cited as the grounds of appeal differs from this case, and thus it is inappropriate to invoke this case.

2. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment which acquitted the prosecutor on the grounds that there is no proof of crime as to the remainder of the primary facts charged and part of the ancillary facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that both 1-1 and 1-2 are concurrent crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and on the grounds that there is no proof of crime as to the remaining primary facts charged and part of the ancillary facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.