All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by Defendant D’s defense counsel).

1. As to each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal on the part of mediation and acceptance regarding CY business, the crime of mediation and acceptance under Article 3 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) is established upon the receipt of money and other valuables under the pretext of arranging matters belonging to the public official’s duties. As such, “mediation” generally refers to the act of delivering the parties’ intentions to a public official, promoting convenience, or helping a decision to be made in the direction of a party’s desire by exercising influence on certain matters belonging to the public official’s duties.

In such cases, the duties of public officials shall be included in the case of legitimate duties, and the other party to the mediation or the details of his/her duties shall not be specified in detail, and if money or other valuables are received under the pretext of the above mediation, the above crime shall be established regardless of which mediation is actually conducted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10496 Decided February 26, 2009, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13354 Decided January 12, 2012, etc.). Furthermore, whether there exists a quid pro quo relationship between a public official’s referral of matters pertaining to his/her duties and a public official’s receipt of money or valuables shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances, such as the content of the relevant arrangement, whether there is a quid pro quo relationship between the broker and the provider of profits, the details and