Examining the evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance as maintained by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below was just in finding the facts charged that the defendant, in handling the case of a request for the review of national tax against the corporate tax imposed on the non-indicted 1 corporation, at the request of the public official belonging to the National Tax Service and requested the public official belonging to the National Tax Service for a reduction of the above tax amount of five million won under the pretext of teaching expenses, and it is not erroneous in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence against the theory of lawsuit, and it is reasonable to interpret that the case or affairs handled by the public official under Article 54 of the former Attorney-at-Law Act refers to all the cases or affairs except for his own identity. Thus, even if the defendant is a shareholder of the non-indicted 1 corporation and was an auditor of the above corporation, if the defendant received money and valuables from the above corporation under the pretext of solicitation from the public official related to the above corporation, it cannot be accepted, and therefore, the judgment below is also erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Attorney-at-law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)