The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles (as to acceptance of good offices), the Defendant did not receive 20 million won from F as good offices fees, even though he did not deliver to G the money received from F as a bribe from the beginning with the intention to deliver it to public officials.

In addition, 5.5 million won that the defendant actually acquired is paid to G as a referral fee, not received as a referral fee.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in holding that the defendant received the full amount of KRW 30 million from F, which the defendant received from F, as to the referral of matters belonging to the public official's duties.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was the primary offender of unreasonable sentencing, recognition of the Defendant’s acts written in the facts charged, and reflects his mistake during the period of detention, and the Defendant contributed to the development of the local community while operating the tax accounting office in a neutral position between the taxpayer and the tax office for 35 years, and the Defendant did not refuse the request from the F, and introduced a certified tax accountant G with good faith in reporting capital gains tax without refusing to comply with the request from the deceased and the deceased, and reached the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution in August, and five hundred and fifty million won of collected tax amount) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant did not receive KRW 30 million from F as a bribe from the beginning with the intention of offering it as a bribe, but received all or part of the said money from F with the intent of acquiring it as a price for good offices for public officials; and (b) the Defendant’s payment of KRW 5 million, which was received from F, on February 2015, constitutes the retainer of the good offices fee; and (a) the Defendant or G received KRW 30 million in total from F, from F, until November 2015, the Defendant or G received KRW 30 million in total from F.