Defendant

B, C’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are not due to the tax investigation of Z, but rather due to the decline in the promotion of the Z and thus, Defendant A would first help the opening of the tax accountant business.

A's statement that corresponds to the facts charged is just a contact and it is not reliable.

In addition, the defendant did not have a position to directly participate in the tax investigation of the Z and did not have the authority to terminate the tax investigation, and the tax investigation was already classified as a case that does not meet the taxation requirements within the National Tax Service. Therefore, the defendant did not recognize that the amount paid to A was a quid pro quo in relation to the tax investigation of the Z, and there was money and entertainment received by the defendant as a job-related or quid pro quo.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the 2 years of suspended sentence in August, and the 11,000,000 won and the 5,295,000 won and the 5,295,000 won and the 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) Fact misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have arranged matters that belong to the duties of tax officials, such as introducing or soliciting a tax official in charge who dealt with A’s tax accountant case before or after the receipt of money or valuables, as described in the facts charged.

Even if domestic good offices are recognized, there is no relationship between the money and goods received by the defendant and the good offices, considering the relationship between the defendant and A, the circumstances, timing, etc. of accepting the money and goods.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the penalty of KRW 10,000,000, the penalty of KRW 12,000,000) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) It was true that Defendant A reversed the statement about the amount of money and valuables provided to Defendant A by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of Defendant A and B), but thereafter, Defendant A reversed the statement.