Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

A KRW 185,00,000 from Defendant B, and KRW 215,00,000 from Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a tax accountant belonging to R in the 7th floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q building center, and Defendant B is a tax accountant of the said corporation that was retired in the auditor office of the Seoul regional tax office and the Defendants entered into a contract on behalf of the representative director of the SS corporation and the director of Seomancheon Tax Office for the revocation of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,130,471,260 in October 19, 201.

In addition, around March 1, 2013, the Defendants received KRW 400 million from T in the meeting room around April 1, 2013, the Defendants stated that “A request for the revocation of the taxation disposition by the Seocheon-do Tax Office for the first period of January 201, 201, which was imposed by the Seocheon-do Tax Office, is unlikely to win.” This means that “A request from the former and incumbent U.S. to win.” and received KRW 400 million from T in the meeting room.

As a result, Defendants conspired to receive money and valuables under the pretext of soliciting the cases handled by public officials.

Summary of Evidence

1. T legal statement of the witness;

1. Defendants, and T, each prosecutorial investigation protocol concerning the Defendants (excluding the part denying the substantial authenticity of the investigation protocol of the prosecution in the first and second examinations of the Defendants, among the first and second examinations conducted by the prosecution) were made by the Defendants in the first and second examinations conducted by the prosecution, but this was a statement made by the prosecution investigator's coercive force, meeting, or intimidation, and the Defendants continued to receive the money for a solicitation, and the Defendants cannot be exempted from detention if they continued to deny the receipt of the money for a solicitation. The public officials of the Tax Tribunal did not have any discretion as a statement made in a psychological state that concerns over the occurrence of enormous shock in the duties of the tax accountant in the future, and it is difficult to view that the said protocol was made under reliable circumstances. However, the Defendants met with the defense counsel before undergoing the investigation by the prosecution, while the Defendants met with the defense counsel.