Of the convictions and innocences against Defendant A, the amount of KRW 20 million related to the investigation of Defendant A on November 2014 is KRW 20 million.

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts (as to the crime of acquiring a third party bribe among the convictions), Defendant A is in the position of a third party independent of the person B of the mine.

As such, Defendant A received 20 million won in cash from B to a tax official who intends to give a bribe.

Even if a third party bribe is not established, the crime of acquiring a third party bribe is not established.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the above Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The non-guilty part of Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts) was sold in lots in the amount of KRW 60 million on January 14, 2015, Defendant A’s non-guilty part ① paid KRW 30 million as the down payment; ② the remainder of KRW 30 million on August 19, 2015; ② the withdrawal of KRW 81 million from the account related to the same business was verified at the time of the instant crime; ③ the Defendant was recognized to have delivered KRW 15 million to the prosecution investigators; ③ around December 2014, the Defendant provided money to the tax office and the employees of the public prosecutor’s office with intent to resolve legal problems with respect to the reduction points of KRW 40 million after deducting KRW 40 million from its partners.

In full view of the fact that Defendant A and I received the above amount of KRW 40 million from I in their own loan transactions in order to protect the public officials who received the said amount of money after one year after the statement was made by the assent of all the partners, and after the dispute between the partners, Defendant A and I can recognize the fact that Defendant A received this amount of KRW 40 million from I.

2) Defendant C (1) was aware of the person in charge of the tax investigation at a gender point through Defendant C, and thus, Defendant C’s statement that there was a request related to the tax investigation to Defendant C. ② Defendant A stated in relation to the method of entry in the pocket book that “if there remains any remaining days and the day has been completed, no longer than a certain number of days.” Although there was a “C” mark after the entry of “C20”, the amount is stated.