All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant A’s grounds of appeal are examined. A.

“Duties” as to the grounds of appeal on duties in the crime of bribery includes not only the duties prescribed in the Acts and subordinate statutes, but also the duties related thereto, and all duties to be performed by a public official, such as duties belonging to the general authority under the Acts and subordinate statutes, in addition to those to be in the past or to be in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do1060, Jun. 13, 2003). In addition, the term “duty” refers to not only the duties performed by the public official who receives the benefits, but also the duties may be included in the case where there is no room for giving or receiving the benefits to the person who has provided the benefits in the nature or content of the duties, even if there is no room for giving or receiving the benefits to the person who has provided the benefits in the nature

(2) The court below held that Defendant A’s exemption from liability is related to Defendant A’s duties, on the ground that Defendant A’s exemption from liability falls under the duties of Defendant B or R in the future, or at least is closely related to Defendant B or R’s duties, at the time when Defendant A was exempt from liability as stated in the facts charged, based on the comprehensive consideration of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. The court below determined that Defendant A’s exemption from liability is related to Defendant A’s duties, inasmuch as Defendant A’s duties fall under the duties of Defendant A to be in charge of the future, or at least the duties of Defendant A are closely related to Defendant B orR’s duties.

Examining the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s duty relationship with respect to the bribery.