All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records on Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, Defendant D appealed on the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for exclusion from liability for the crime of offering a bribe cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act”) on September 2, 2014 and January 14, 2015 among the facts charged against Defendant A, and the third-party brain acquisition part.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the arrangement in the crime of violating the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the arrangement in the crime of violating the said Act

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 on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the part on acquittal of the first instance court’s grounds).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent and admissibility

4...