All appeals are dismissed.

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

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have convicted Defendant A of all of the facts charged in the instant case of acceptance and intermediation of bribe and acceptance of bribe from Defendant A in 2012, and of acceptance of bribe and acceptance of bribe from entertainment in 2015 and 2016 (excluding the part on acquittal of each of the grounds of appeal). In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on job relevance and the crime of acceptance of bribe.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant A guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the charge of accepting and offering KRW 5 million from February 3, 2016, and KRW 10 million from March 8, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, and the charge of accepting and arranging bribe and offering bribe from Defendant B, and the charge of offering bribe from Defendant B, and found Defendant B not guilty on the ground of the reasoning. In so doing, contrary to the allegation in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the criteria for distinguishing the principle of direct examination, court-oriented trial, and the principle of distinction between bribe and the loan