All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted Defendant C, D, E, and F on each of the above facts charged, on the ground that it was not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that Defendant A, and G were involved in the crime of interference with business affairs related to M and K employment, and that they were not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is nothing more than dispute over the judgment of the court below as to the selection and probative value of evidence, which belongs to the free judgment of the

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding joint principal offenders, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. Defendant B’s violation of the Public Service Ethics Act: (a) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged that it is difficult to deem AG to be an employment-restricted institution under the former Public Service Ethics Act, since it performed the FV duties by installing FR and performing the affairs entrusted by the State; and (b) acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the employment-restricted institution under the Public Service Ethics Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court acquitted Defendant F of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the Defendant was regularly

The judgment below

(b) reasons.