(b) Offering of bribe;

Accommodation-si

Seongdong-gu Seoul basic domicile

2.(b) Kim ② (*******************)***) and the head of tax accounting office.

Residential Suwon City

Reference domicile City

3.(b) A. III. (*********************) and ○○○○○○ representative director.

Housing Olsan City

Gangwon-gu in the place of registration:

Attorney Park Jin-bok

Attorney Park Gi-do (for defendant Kim ②)

Attorney Park Young-young (Korean National Assembly for defendant Kim Yong-soo)

However, for 2 years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above imprisonment with labor shall be suspended.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

Defendant ① to collect 10 million won from Defendant ①.

Defendant ① ordered the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge against Defendant ①.

1. Status of the Defendants

Defendant (1) ① is a tax official working at the ○○ Tax Office Investigation Division (Class 6), and Defendant Kim ② is a chief executive officer working at the ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”). On May 8, 2015, the Suwon District Court was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on August 16, 2015 due to the offering of a bribe at the Suwon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 16, 2015. Defendant ③ is a person who is the chief executive officer of the ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○”) established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling semiconductor equipment at Pyeongtaek-si.

2. ① Defendant 1

From August 5, 2013, the Defendant started a tax investigation with respect to ○○○○ upon suspicion of tax evasion through processing transactions, etc. from around August 5, 2013, and conducted an on-site investigation, and submitted explanatory materials.

On August 21, 2013, the Defendant received a solicitation from Kim ② to give KRW 10 million to the Defendant, who was in charge of the investigation of ○○○○○○○, and the tax adjustment, etc. at the office around August 21, 2013, at the Kim ②, to the effect that the Defendant would promptly complete the tax investigation. On August 28, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 10 million in cash from Kim ② in return for the demand from the Defendant on the top of the 1st floor of the building of the ○○○ Tax Accounting Office at the ○○○○○○○○ Office.

Accordingly, the defendant accepted a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

2. On August 2013, Defendant Kim ②, Defendant Kim ②: (a) the tax investigation on ○○○○○ was conducted with the first patrol officer on August 2013, 2013; (b) the said investigation on ○○○○○ was proposed to the effect that it would promptly complete the tax investigation; and (c) Defendant Defendant Yong-B’s consent to this, Defendant Yong-B gave KRW 10 million in cash to Defendant Kim ② on August 21, 2013; and (d) Defendant Kim ② (a) the amount of KRW 10 million was delivered to Defendant Kim ② as set forth in the preceding paragraph, and (e) the amount of KRW 10 million was delivered to Defendant Kim ②.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to give a bribe in relation to the public official's duties.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant ①: Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act (Joint Imposition of Imprisonment and Fine in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

B. Defendant ②, Defendant ②, and Defendant ③: Articles 133(1), 129(1), and 30 of the Criminal Code (elective of each fine)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of offering of a bribe and the crime of offering a bribe in the judgment that became final and conclusive)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant ①: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant ① : Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations favorable to the reasons for sentencing as follows)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant ①: Article 134 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant ① : Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant ①: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years and six months; fine of up to twenty million won to twenty five million won; Defendant Kim ②, Yong-B, and Yong-B: each fine of up to twenty million won;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant 1 ①

[Determination of Type] Bribery, Acceptance of Bribery, Type 2 (not less than KRW 10 million but less than KRW 30 million) (no special person)

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one year to three years

B. Defendant ②, Defendant ②, Defendant ③: The sentencing guidelines will not apply according to the choice of each fine.

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant ①: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 2 years of suspended execution; and

As a tax official who requires high integrity, the defendant received a bribe from his/her related party of a company subject to tax investigation and substantially undermines fairness in tax administration and trust in society, the defendant's liability for such crime is not against the law.

However, the sentence like the order shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant is led to the crime of this case and is against the law, that the defendant deposited in order to return a bribe received by the defendant, that the defendant has worked as a tax official for a long time as a tax official, that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the age, character, character and environment

(b) Defendant Kim B: a fine of KRW 10 million;

The defendant works as a business office of a tax accountant office, and a bribe of KRW 10 million to a tax official.

The criminal liability of the defendant is not weak because it infringes on the general public's trust in the fairness and infinite purchase of the duties performed by the public official by providing the public.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant confessions the crime of this case and reflects the crime of this case, and the crime of offering of bribe in which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are related to the crime of offering of bribe, etc., and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant'

(c) Defendant Yong: Fines 10 million won;

The defendant's criminal liability is not exceptionally against the defendant's duty by offering a bribe of KRW 10 million to a tax official in charge of the tax investigation of the company's management, thereby infringing on the general public's trust in the fairness and influence of the public official's duty.

However, the same sentence as the order shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant confessions the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct of the defendant, and environment

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Hwang Sung-sung

Judge Lee Dong-dong