The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 3,00,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not conduct international multimodal transport arrangement business (i.e., trading) to the extent that a bribe should be given, and there was no ability to give a bribe.

Defendant

In addition, there is no lack of convenience from J to and from work, nor there is no help from J in relation to the designation of managed cargo.

As can be seen, the J attempted to reduce criminal punishment for himself/herself even though he/she did not give a bribe to the Defendant, and first, issued at least KRW 200 to KRW 3 million each week from March 201 to February 201.

After informing “A investigative agency of the credibility of its statement,” the investigative agency issued a total of KRW 43 million over three times as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

“A false statement,” and the statement or financial transaction details of M et al. do not serve as a basis for strengthening the credibility of the J’s statement.

Nevertheless, there is credibility of the J’s statement

Defendant received a bribe of KRW 43 million in total from J on three occasions.

In the original judgment, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Considering that the punishment of the lower court (the imprisonment of three years and fine of 50 million won, additional collection of KRW 43 million) is too unreasonable when considering the fact that the criminal defendant has no history of being sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment, and that he/she has been faithfully serving as a tax official for 30 years or more.

B. Although the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) was in a position to exercise overall control over the department in charge of collecting, analyzing, and screening, designating, and inspecting cargo to be managed through the Incheon port, the court below’s punishment is too excessive when considering the fact that the fair and non-purchase performance of the public official’s duties is considerably damaged by taking advantage of the position that the defendant denies the crime and does not reflect the defendant.