All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements of grounds of appeal filed by defense counsel after the lapse of the period for appeal).

1. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the remainder of money and valuables in excess of KRW 29 million in relation to the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) with the purport that Defendant B received a total of KRW 89.4 million from Defendant A over 65 times, and found the Defendant A not guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of crime.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations in its judgment, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acquisition of a third party bribe and the issuance of a third party bribe, and the evaluation of the probative value of indirect evidence.

(2) The prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, but does not indicate the grounds of appeal as to this part of the final appeal and the reasons of appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant B of all the remainder of the charges charged against Defendant B, excluding the part not guilty in the reasoning of the foregoing paragraph 1, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the standards for recognition of job relevance, which is the elements for establishing the crime of bribery, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on recognition of the fact of accepting money and valuables, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of hearsay statements, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the content of the Defendant’s specific duties, and by

3. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.