beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
30 million won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a former tax official who has no certain occupation.
On December 1, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that “A office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st underground level may conclude a field investigation of capital gains tax by requesting the public officials of the competent district tax office at the competent district tax office, if the Defendant is a former tax official, and thus, may complete the field investigation of capital gains tax by requesting the public officials of the competent district tax office at the competent district tax office.”
Accordingly, D transferred gold KRW 10 million to a national bank account under the name of the defendant as a starting fee on December 13, 2011, and transferred gold KRW 20 million to the same account as a balance on January 10, 2012.
As a result, the Defendant received a total of KRW 30 million under the pretext of arranging or soliciting a case handled by a public official.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Each police statement made to D and E;
1. Application of the retainer contract of capital gains tax, tax base return of capital gains tax, dispatch report of transfer income tax, investigation report (personal information of reference E) statute;
1. Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act concerning facts constituting an offense;
1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 116 of the Attorney-at-Law Act [Scope of Recommendation] The mitigated area (6 to 1 year) of receiving money and valuables (30 million won or more, or less, and less than 50 million won) under the pretext of solicitation and intermediation [Article 116] [Article 116 of the Attorney-at-law Act] [Article 116 of the Attorney-at-law Act] [Article 2 of the Act (Article 30 million won or more, and less than 50 million won), the crime of this case is committed in favor of the defendant since the defendant received 30 million won from D in return for the defendant to avoid on-site investigation of capital gains tax in favor of the tax official].
However, the defendant is actually in charge of money on the ground of the pro rata of the former tax official and the person in charge of the work.