However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In February of 2016, the defendant was a public official who was a tax official, and was pointed out to the public official audit of the Central Local Tax Service in connection with D transfer income tax case processed by the North Incheon Tax Office.

It is difficult to keep the audit results from a wrong manner.

The request was received for “a request to introduce E, which is currently being audited by the relevant North Incheon Tax Office,” as the Republic of Korea is key and sub-committeeed.

On February 19, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Defendant’s request to the effect that, as public officials E belonging to the Inspector Office of the Central Local National Tax Service in the restaurant, the Defendant moved C in the cafeteria at the cafeteria-dong of Pyeongtaek-si, and delivered money from the cafeteria-si to the E auditor, and then sent money from the cafeteria to the E auditor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects of public prosecution against F and G;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to C (second time);

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of D Transfer Income Tax Report Data, Attachment of a copy of the resolution following the audit of the Incheon Incheon Tax Office that recommended D Transfer Income Tax, attachment of audit correction items for suspect E's D Transfer Income Tax case, attachment of documents indicating instructions for disposition, such as inquiries about the acquisition value of transferred income by suspect E in the audit, attachment of audit regulations by the National Tax Service related to D Transfer Income Tax case, and attachment of relevant data), and application of statutes on the attached data;

1. Relevant Article 133 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 129 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment (the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Grounds for sentencing under the latter part of Article 134 of the Criminal Act; and

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria [types] : One type (less than 30 million won) (the amount below 30 million won) (the general sentencing sentencing factors): Delivery of lightnings, serious reflectivity [the scope of recommended punishment]: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period from 4 months to 10 months.

3. Determination of sentence: Six months of imprisonment; and