All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Whether the Defendant received a bribe of KRW 5 million (misunderstanding of the legal principle) or not (misunderstanding of the fact) is admissible since the report on the investigation by the prosecution investigator on the preparation of the investigation investigator was written in the form of an ex post facto investigation report prepared from the chief prosecutor who interviewed the Defendant by the prosecution investigator, which was written in the form of an ex post facto investigation report in the form of an investigation report, which was written in the course of the preparation, not only prejudgments the conviction to the

The lower court, in violation of the rules of evidence, states the evidence inadmissible as evidence of guilt, thereby adversely affecting the rules of evidence.

I's statements are contradictory, consistent, and are not reliable because they are responsible for the defendant in order to be mitigated from one's responsibility.

I received KRW 10 million from H and delivered KRW 5 million out of the total amount of KRW 10 million to the accused even though he/she has no realized and no fact has been delivered to the accused.

false statements are made.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

B) In relation to G transfer income tax cases, the Defendant was merely taking on-site corrective measures in accordance with the internal practice of the audit and inspection agency of the National Tax Service in relation to G transfer income tax, and did not have any unlawful action.

According to the audit regulations of the National Tax Service and the local government offices, it is difficult to readily conclude that the failure to issue an order to request investigation is “unlawful act” because it is difficult to determine whether to impose taxes on the basis of the submitted data.

In general, if a tax office subject to audit requests a self-inspection during the audit period, it did not provide an audit-related notice at the audit level.

Even if it is illegal or unfair, it can not be viewed as illegal or unfair.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, five million won of fine, and five million won of penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) misunderstanding the facts of the defendant;