All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on whether to acquire shares, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the first instance court and the adopted evidence by the lower court, and determined that Defendant A received 10,000 shares of G Co., Ltd. (5,00 per share value 5,000 per share) from Defendant B and obtained them under the name of J, in full view of the reasons and circumstances as stated

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below.

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court 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 doctrine on the concept of acceptance in the hearsay rule or the crime of acceptance.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on the duty relationship in the crime of acceptance of bribe, the term “duty” in the crime of bribery includes not only the duty in question under the law, but also the act closely related to the duty in question, or the act of assisting or affecting the decision-making authority.

In addition, the issue of which profit a public official gains is an unfair profit in relation to his duties, shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the contents of the public official's duties, the relationship with a provider of duties and profits, the degree of excessive profits, the circumstances and timing of receiving benefits, etc. In light of the fact that the bribery is the process of performing his duties, the trust in society, and the non-purchase of the act of duties as a public official, it is necessary to make a solicitation or unlawful act related to his duties to establish