All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding embezzlement among the facts charged, the prosecutor 1 of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although M has embezzled money granted by the defendant under the name of supporting the defendant's external activities as the president of the J Association, for a private purpose unrelated to the work of the J Association, and the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that it was a donation to the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (related to embezzlement), the court below's decision to find the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable for reasons as stated in its reasoning.

In the judgment below, there is no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, and this part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit

B. We examine both the determination of unfair sentencing and the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

As a journalist with considerable social experience and status, the fact that the Defendant received money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting or arranging cases or affairs handled by public officials is highly likely to be subject to criticism, and that the amount received is not much, and that the Defendant attempted to distort the facts at the time of being investigated by the investigative agency, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, this part of the facts charged is recognized by the defendant, and the amount of damage is returned to the victim and the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, and the defendant did not make an illegal solicitation against the actual related public officials.