All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s acceptance of bribe and Defendant D’s offering of bribe to Defendant D

A. In a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in the indictment, and the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

This legal doctrine applies likewise to cases where the nature of the money received is disputed whether it is a bribe.

Therefore, if there is no evidence of probative value that the nature of the received money is a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201; 201Do6280, Aug. 30, 201). (b) The lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty.

The reason is that there is no proof to exclude a reasonable doubt about the fact that Defendant A’s ASEAN received KRW 20 million from Defendant D is not a business fund but a money provided as a bribe to Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the bribery of the crime of receiving

2. As to Defendant A’s preparation of a false official document and the uttering of a false official document, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, acquitted Defendant A on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of crime.