90,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The Defendant was appointed as Grade VII tax official on January 1, 197 and retired from the Seoul Regional National Tax Service, the National Tax Service, and the Central Local Tax Service on December 1, 1997. Since around 1998, the Defendant served as a tax accountant affiliated with the tax accounting corporation E (Dong Branch) from around 1998 to around 2013.

On November 28, 2012, the Defendant received a delivery of KRW 40 million in cash and KRW 50 million in cash at the same place as at the end of January 2013, of KRW 90,000,000 in cash, in consideration of the provision of convenience and the provision of inheritance tax reduction and exemption, from the president of the above gas station in G gas station located in Guri-siF, and from H’s husband I, from the Central Local National Tax Service on inheritance incurred due to the death of H’s husband I.

As a result, the defendant received money and valuables on the intermediation of matters belonging to public officials' duties.

Summary of Evidence

Part of the Defendant’s legal testimony H’s legal statement of H and each prosecutor’s tax statement against J (Evidence No. 54)

1. Copy of business agreement (Evidence 56 Nos. 56 of evidence), copy of deposit slip (Evidence 57);

1. A set of copies (the sequence 241 in the list of evidence);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, covering the relevant provisions of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the choice of punishment;

1. Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes [Judgment as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel] The cash of KRW 40 million that the defendant and his/her defense counsel received from H around November 28, 2012 constitutes justifiable remuneration for the tax investigation due to the death of H, who is the husband of H (hereinafter “tax investigation of this case”), and the tax investigation of this case does not constitute money received under the pretext of good offices, such as street funds, etc. for the public officials in charge of tax investigation.

In addition, there is no fact that the Defendant received KRW 50 million from H around January 2013.

2. Determination

(a) On January 2012