Defendant

Kim Young-young et al.

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Lee Dong-sung

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

One day of detention before this judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence.

Seized Bank of Korea notes 20,000 per annum (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

The defendant was appointed as a tax official around 1966 and retired from the office of the Seoul Regional Tax Office (name omitted) on December 31, 2004 through the director of the investigation division, etc. of the Seoul Regional Tax Office (name omitted) around 2001, and operated (trade name omitted) office from January 30, 2005;

around April 20, 2005, at the request of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, a counsel with Nonindicted 3, a counsel with Nonindicted 1 and 2, who was under investigation in connection with “comprehensive tax audit by a State of Seoul (name of a regional tax office omitted), to conduct a proxy audit for Nonindicted 1 and 2 in connection with Nonindicted 3’s tax investigation, and received a request from Nonindicted 3, a counsel with Nonindicted 1 and 2, and received a fee of KRW 20 million, and submitted a letter of delegation from Nonindicted 1 and 2 to the Seoul regional tax office on April 25, 2005, and conducted a proxy audit;

On April 205, 2005, Hongdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 824-22, on the 3rd floor (trade name omitted) office of the building, Nonindicted 1, who was at the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, was at the head of the investigation division, and Nonindicted 5, who was currently in charge of the tax investigation, was at the time of the preliminary investigation. There is only a person who can resolve the instant case. There is no one who is only the person who can settle the instant case.), followed Nonindicted 1 again at the same office, to the effect that “I would bring KRW 200 million in cash with the capital to reduce tax audit”, and around April 29, 2005, Nonindicted 1 received the statement from Nonindicted 2 to 20 billion won from Nonindicted 1, who received the statement to the effect that “I would have no tax imposed, who would have been at the same time, deliver money and valuables from 205 billion won to 1,000,000 won in cash: 205.”

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 1’s witness

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including Nonindicted Party 1's statement among the third prosecutor's protocol of interrogation)

1. Each prosecutor's office and each police's statement about Nonindicted 1 and 4

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 6 (including Nonindicted 7’s statement)

1. Part of the second police interrogation protocol against the Defendant’s second police officer’s statement

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 5

1. The written statement of Nonindicted 3 and 4 and the written confirmation of facts by Nonindicted 6 (the investigative record 683 pages)

1. Police seizure records and list of seizures, photographs and files of seized articles (720 pages of investigation records);

1. Each proxy form (for investigation records, 40, 41, 665, 666, 782, 783 pages) and each proxy form (685 pages);

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant asserts that he received KRW 200,000 from Nonindicted 1 as a legitimate remuneration or a fee due to the acceptance of delegation of a tax investigation, as a certified tax accountant, rather than receiving a tax amount from an exculcing, under the pretext that he would evade a tax investigation or correct or cancel the imposed tax amount.

2. Determination

(1) First, as alleged by the Defendant, whether the KRW 200 million is a fee or fee for a tax investigation by proxy and a request for a dissatisfaction, is examined. According to the factual basis acknowledged by each of the evidence mentioned above, the above assertion cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

First, the defendant received a large amount of KRW 200 million in cash, which included it in two passbooks, and stored it in the house without depositing it in the passbook, as is, for three months until it is seized. This is difficult to view it as a method of ordinary payment and storage of reasonable remuneration or fees as a tax accountant (the defendant himself/herself received from a prosecutor's office as a substitute passbook and received it in cash, and stated that it is used as office operating expenses by depositing it in an individual treasury or depositing it in the passbook (see Investigation Record 739 pages).

Second, the defendant asserted that he was delegated by Nonindicted 1 with the authority to conduct a tax investigation on Nonindicted 1 and 2 directly by Nonindicted 1 in his office, and that he was paid KRW 200 million on the pretext of the authority to conduct the tax investigation on Nonindicted 1 and 2. On the other hand, Nonindicted 1 only prepared the power of attorney at the office of Nonindicted 3 attorney and prepared the power of attorney at the office of Nonindicted 2 and did not delegate the power of attorney to the defendant for direct tax investigation. However, first of all, Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 6, who was delegated with the power of attorney at the investigative agency, stated that both Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 6, who was delegated with the power of attorney at the office of Nonindicted 3 attorney at the investigative agency, made a letter of attorney at the office of attorney at the ordinary criminal case and the letter of attorney at the Seoul regional tax office, support the defendant's assertion, and that the letter of attorney submitted by the defendant to the police and the Seoul regional tax office, and the letter of attorney sent by Nonindicted 4 tax accountant, therefore, it is difficult to accept the defendant'

Third, the Defendant asserts that KRW 200 million received from Nonindicted 1 was paid as remuneration for an agent in charge of tax investigation, and separately claimed that the amount of KRW 20 million received from Nonindicted 3 attorney-at-law was not remuneration for the agent in charge of tax investigation with respect to Nonindicted 1 and 2, but for the tax-related advisory fee with respect to Nonindicted 3 attorney-at-law. However, Nonindicted 3 attorney-at-law delegated with the instant case by Nonindicted 1 first delegated the agent in charge of tax investigation to Nonindicted 4, but was introduced to the Defendant who was an officer in charge of Nonindicted 5’s commercial affairs. Accordingly, the Defendant submitted the power of attorney-at-law prepared by the Defendant at the Seoul Regional Tax Office to the Seoul Regional Tax Office after attending the tax investigation with respect to Nonindicted 1 of the National Tax Service (name omitted), and there is no evidence to support Nonindicted 3’s attorney-at-law with any content of tax-related consultation, and there is no reason to view that Nonindicted 3 merely paid the amount of money to the Defendant for consultation with Nonindicted 40 million won.

Fourth, as above, it is not understood that the Defendant has already received KRW 20 million from Nonindicted 3’s attorney under the pretext of the delegation of tax investigation, and it is not understood that he has received KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 1 as remuneration for the delegation of tax investigation even though it is no longer a stage of the delegation of tax investigation in the status where the disposition of tax imposition was issued after the completion of the tax investigation.

Fifth, in the process of receiving KRW 200 million from Nonindicted 1, the Defendant did not have prepared a written contract or power of attorney to appeal the tax imposition disposition with Nonindicted 1, and even if he/she made an oral agreement with the content of delegation of authority to appeal even if he/she did not reach an agreement with Nonindicted 1 (see, e.g., the Defendant also stated that he/she had received it in advance after he/she completed the tax investigation at the time of receiving KRW 200 million from the prosecution, or that he/she would have tried to appeal after re-verification of Nonindicted 1’s intention after correcting the amount of tax (see, e.g., the investigation record).

Sixth, after the completion of the tax investigation, Nonindicted 1 became aware of the issuance of the tax imposition disposition by Nonindicted 4 tax accountants on April 29, 2005, and received the notice of tax imposition on May 2, 2005. On the following day, Nonindicted 1’s granting a fine of KRW 200 million to the Defendant for the purpose of entrusting the appeal without preparing the power of attorney.

Therefore, it is not possible to accept any remuneration for acting as an agent for an investigation of KRW 200,000,000 as alleged by the defendant, and in light of the fact that it is difficult to present circumstances where KRW 200,000,00 is received under any other name than the street funds in light of the development process of the instant case, the facts charged are sufficient to be

(2) Next, as indicated in the facts charged, direct evidence that the Defendant received KRW 200 million as a rain fund for the correction and cancellation of the tax investigation or taxes is the only statement in the investigation agency and court of Nonindicted Party 1, and thus, it should be seen as a matter of course.

In the process of making statements by the police, the prosecutor's office, and this court several times, Nonindicted 1 stated that "It is difficult for the Defendant to reverse the above statement of KRW 200 million to the extent that the Defendant had made a statement on April 20, 2005 and around the 23th day of the same month, Nonindicted 1 stated that "before the Seoul Regional Tax Office head was in charge of the investigation, Nonindicted 5 was in charge of the current tax investigation," and " there is no person who can solve this because he retired from the office (title omitted)" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 750-751, supra), it is difficult for the Defendant to understand the above contents of the tax investigation as a substitute (see, e.g., the investigation record) and that it is difficult for the Defendant to keep the tax investigation as soon as possible, and how the Defendant would have made a statement on the grounds that it would be 200,000 won or more before and after the investigation."

On the other hand, although the defendant's prosecutor's statement did not have any specific amount of money to Nonindicted 1 and there was no demand for money, Nonindicted 1 only 200 million won, who asked Nonindicted 1 to "Graman" in return for money (see, e.g., the investigation record 760 pages). This response cannot be viewed as the attitude of the person who received a large amount of 20 million won per se in the absence of any discussion about the amount in advance. It is difficult to see that the defendant's statement at the prosecutor's office did not receive the payment for acting as an agent for tax investigation and appeal, and it is difficult to believe that there was no conversation that the defendant received the payment for the tax audit and appeal.

(3) In addition, Nonindicted 5, who was in charge of Nonindicted 1’s case, stated that the police stated that Nonindicted 5, who made several requests for tax investigation data and that he could not delay filing a criminal complaint. Nonindicted 4’s ex officio rectification of the tax imposition disposition is exceptionally possible in cases where obvious errors exist, and the circumstance where the Defendant tried to play a role beyond the legitimate scope of the tax accountant’s business.

(4) According to the above examination, it is recognized that the defendant demanded KRW 200,000 to Nonindicted 1 and received it under the pretext of mediating matters belonging to the public official’s duties, such as the termination of tax investigation or the correction or cancellation of tax amount. Thus, the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Selection of Punishment: Article 3 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

2. Calculation of days of pre-trial detention: Article 57 of the Criminal Act;

3. Confiscation: The former part of Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

The defendant receives a large amount of KRW 200 million under the pretext of mediating the cancellation or reduction of taxes on the ground of the career of former tax officials and the human relations with the public officials in charge of tax investigation. Such a crime is inevitable on the ground that it significantly undermines the trust of the public in performing the duties of tax officials essential for the maintenance of the State, and thus, a sentence of sentence is inevitable: Provided, That there is no record of any crime against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant returned KRW 170 million out of KRW 200 million to the non-indicted 1 after committing the crime is considered in favorable circumstances, and the sentence is lowered, and the defendant denies the name of KRW 20 million and the defendant denies the statement of the donor. Therefore, it is difficult for the defendant to keep the defendant under a free state of defense in order to grant the opportunity to obtain a higher judgment on the crime and sentencing.

Justices Park Sung-won (Presiding Judge)