All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged, offering of bribe, violation of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, and fabrication of official documents, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground

Therefore, in this case where the defendant A was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As seen in the judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years was pronounced.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The judgment of the court below that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the duty relationship with the crime of universal offense and the crime of bribery and there was no intention on the forgery of public electronic

The allegation that the amount received after January 18, 2017, among the money received by Defendant B or the amount received by Defendant B, cannot be viewed as a bribe is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground for appeal by Defendant B as the ground for appeal or by the lower court’s ex officio decision.

Furthermore, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court’s judgment No. 2 No. 4 of the judgment of the lower court regarding the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.