A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was appointed as a public official of the National Tax Service around 1991. From around that time to around 2007, the Defendant served at the National Tax Service Counseling Center, Seoul Regional Tax Service Investigation Bureau, Samsung Tax Offices, etc., and operated a certified tax accountant office from around 2007.

around May 2013, the Defendant received a request from the E representative director F, a stock company E, which was subject to a tax investigation by the Seoul Local Tax Service, to the effect that “a request is made to ensure that the tax investigation can be conducted well by requesting a public official of the National Tax Service,” and received a delivery of KRW 100 million in total twice thereafter.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor with respect to F, G, and H;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the notice of tax investigation conducted by the Seoul Local Tax Service on E, and the output of account transaction;

1. Relevant Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the Punishment of Criminal Crimes (comprehensively

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Article 13 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the sentencing guidelines have not been set.

In light of the fact that the tax-related criminal defendant receives money and valuables in return for the referral of matters belonging to the public official's duties and that the nature of the crime is not good, and that the amount received is also KRW 100,000,000, the responsibility of the defendant is not weak.

However, considering the fact that the defendant seems not to actively demand money and valuables, that the defendant does not seem to have given a bribe to the tax official in charge, that the primary offender is favorable sentencing factors, and the punishment as ordered is determined by considering the age, sex, environment, etc. of the defendant and taking into account the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.