특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(뇌물)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
① After completion of a tax investigation from B, the Defendant received KRW 20,000 by marking the margin, but there is no fact that the Defendant first demanded a bribe of KRW 50 million to B.
② Since the Defendant could not secure accounting books for the period subject to the investigation into Jel, the Defendant only prepared a “presumpt report of completion of the investigation into an individual entrepreneur” in consultation with B, a taxpayer, according to tax practice.
Therefore, there was a false statement in the above report, which is an official document, or the defendant was aware that there was a false statement in the preparation of a false official document.
It can not be seen that the Defendant’s act of preparing the above report constitutes “illegal act” in the crime of bribery after accepting the bribe.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the punishment of 3 years and 6 months, the fine of 50 million won, the additional collection of 20,546,00 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts
A. The lower court: (a) whether the Defendant first demanded B to be a bribe; (b) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated; (c) the Defendant demanded B, etc. to use five fingers of damage to B, etc.; and (d) the Defendant understood it as a demand for a bribe of KRW 50 million; (b) the Defendant first called on April 7, 2016; (c) the call was made; and (d) the Defendant was demanded to request B to change “the rest of a bribe” from the Defendant after the call was given KRW 20 million; and (e) the amount was understood as KRW 30 million; and (e) the Defendant’s statement was consistent with the essential part, such as the part that the Defendant received continuous stress upon the Defendant’s demand for a bribe of KRW 50 million; and