All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found Defendant A guilty of the crime of offering a bribe by deeming Defendant A as not a loan, but a bribe, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the above fact finding and determination by the court below is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. When one of the co-offenders of the public contest in the judgment of the grounds for the appeal by Defendant B secedes from the public contest before the others reach the commission of the contest, he is not liable as a joint principal for the subsequent act of the other competitors. However, in the public contest, the deviation from the public contest need to resolve the functional control of the conduct performed by the contestr. As such, when the contestr participated in the public contest led it to the conclusion of the execution by the other contestr, the contestr deviatess from the public contest relationship unless he has removed the influence on the execution, such as actively endeavoring to stop the crime.

Now, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do14843, Feb. 16, 2015). After the defendant committed part of the crime with a single comprehensive crime, the defendant left from the relation of accomplice.

Even if the remaining crime was committed by another accomplice, the Defendant is liable for the crime even for the part that was not involved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9927, Jan. 13, 2011). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court not only participated in the execution of part of the above crime that was committed by Defendant B with a conspiracy for the crime of defraudation of the cost of maintenance in this case, but also excluded from the conspiracy relationship thereafter.

2.3.2