208No182 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery)

*************** (**) and the former Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

Seoul Residence

Seoul basic domicile

Defendant

ΔΔΔ,ΔΔΔ,ΔΔΔ,ΔΔΔ

Attorney Park Jong-V

Law Firm Corporation, Attorney △△△△, ▽▽▽▽

Law Firm Corporation, Attorney △△△△△

Busan District Court Decision 2007Gohap642 Decided February 27, 2008

July 24, 2008

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed;

2. 148 days in prison prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Violation of the evidence law

The court below used the inadmissible evidence as evidence for conviction, thereby violating the rules of evidence.

B. Error of mistake

Although the Defendant did not receive money of KRW 70 million and USD 10,000 in total from ○○○○ through six occasions, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

2. Determination

A. Existence of admissibility

We examine the part of the evidence admitted by the court below as admissibility of evidence (as two copies, the time table of this issue is omitted) which is disputed.

(1) 기록에 의하면, " 청장의 1억 원 용처 수사중단요청 관련 기사첨부"( 증 거목록 21번 , 증거기록 68쪽), "○○○ 뇌물공여 진술청취 경과"(증거목록 42번 , 증거기 록 324쪽), "2007. 10. 27. 토요일 조선일보의 '○○ 부산청장 ○○○에게 진술번복 요구' 신문기사에 대한 국세청 반론 관련 ◇◇◇ 부산청장 전화진술 청취"(증거목록 79 번, 증거기록 677쪽), " 부산청장과의 통화내용 정리"(증거목록 126번, 증거기록 1149쪽), " 청장 혐의부인 진술 관련 정리"(증거목록 140번, 증거기록 1232쪽), "전군표 청장 조사경과 청장 요청사항 포함)"(증거목록 152번 , 증거기록 1348 쪽), " 청장과의 11. 2. 09:02 통화내용 정리"(증거목록 153번, 증거기록 1358쪽), " 청장에 대한 추가 금품공여사실 진술 청취"(증거목록 164번, 증거기록 1374 쪽), " 부산청장 통화 정리"(증거목록 172번 , 증거기록 1400쪽), "△△△, ⑦⑦⑦ , ♡♡♡ 소환 및 조사경과"(증거목록 176번, 증거기록 1464쪽), "◈◈◈ 조사요청 국세 청 직원 ♡♡♡ 출석거부 확인보고 "(증거목록 182번, 증거기록 1515쪽), "녹취록(11. 2. 09:52 ① 청장 - 수사검사 통화)"(증거목록 186번, 증거기록 1529쪽), "♡♡♡( 비 서), ○○○ 방문사실 인정"(증거목록 187번 , 증거기록 1536쪽), "♡♡♡ 재차 불출석 예정"(증거목록 189번 , 증거기록 1541쪽), "♡♡♡ 전화진술 청취"(증거목록 191번 , 증 거기록 1544쪽), "♡♡♡ 일부 허위진술 확인"(증거목록 192번 , 증거기록 1548쪽), " ◈ ◈◈ 청장에 대한 추가 금품공여사실 관련 수사경과"(증거목록 197번 , 증거기록 1579 쪽), "CCTV 국세청 출입자 전체 확인 불가"(증거목록 200번, 증거기록 1606쪽)는, 다른 사람들의 진술을 주된 내용으로 하여 검사 또는 검찰서기가 작성한 문서로서, 그 중 일부에는 검사의 수사에 관한 의견이 추가로 기재되거나 신문기사가 자료로 첨부된 사 실이 인정된다.

The part of the above evidence’s statement made by other persons among the above evidence constitutes hearsay evidence, and according to Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, hearsay evidence cannot be admitted as evidence other than those prescribed in Articles 311 through 316. However, since it is apparent that the above part of the evidence is not subject to Articles 311, 312, 315, and 316 of the same Act, it can be examined whether Article 314 is applicable only to the document stating the statement in Article 313. In addition, in order to apply Article 313, the document stating the statement must have the signature or seal of the person who made the statement, and the authenticity of establishment by the person who made the statement should be proven at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2742, Feb. 26, 199). However, each of the above evidence is signed or sealed by the prosecutor, and it is not signed or sealed by the person making the original statement.

Of the above evidence, the part of newspaper articles attached to the above evidence does not have the signature or seal of the author. In addition, they constitute a re-specialized statement since the newspaper reporters drafted the contents of the articles before others as articles. Since there is no provision that recognizes admissibility differently under the Criminal Procedure Act, as to the re-specialized statement, insofar as the defendant does not agree to admit admissibility as evidence, they cannot be admitted as evidence pursuant to Article 310-2 of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do159, Mar. 10, 200).

On the other hand, the part of the above evidence where the prosecutor's investigative opinion is stated is merely prepared to report internal evaluations and opinions on the background of the investigation, and it cannot be seen as "a statement or a document stating the statement prepared by the defendant or a person other than the defendant" under Article 313 (1) of the same Act, and it is apparent that it does not be subject to Articles 311, 315, and 316 (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do293, May 29, 2001).

Therefore, all evidence of the above cannot be admitted as evidence.

(2) According to the records, the "verification of cash transport document bags and file files (Evidence No. 61, evidence list, No. 556 pages of evidence records)" means that the prosecutor tested whether cash of KRW 10 million and KRW 20 million are entered in the document bags and plastic-based private document files box, and the "field confirmation document" (Evidence No. 262, evidence record No. 2130) stated by ○○○○ in accordance with the conduct of October 10, 2006, the contents of which fall under the result of verification or actual survey.

According to Articles 17 and 54 of the Rules on the Administrative Affairs of the Prosecutors' Office, where a prosecutor conducts a fact-finding or verification at the scene of a crime or at other places, he/she shall prepare a fact-finding or verification report in accordance with the prescribed form that the prosecutor shall participate in the investigation or verification report.

However, the above evidence is prepared without the participation of the prosecutor in charge of the prosecution or the assistant prosecutor in the prescribed form. Thus, it cannot be said that the "written statement in which the prosecutor makes a decision of verification" under Article 312 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act or the "written statement in Article 17 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecution" under Article 313 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it cannot be deemed that the "written statement prepared by the defendant or the person other than the defendant and the document which contains such statement" under Article 311, Article 315, and Article 316 of the same Act are not applicable, so it is clear that the admissibility of the above evidence may not be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2933, May 29, 2001).

(3) " 부산청장이 ○○○을 면담하여 두 차례 언급한 ' ▲▲▲이 ▼▼▼ 청 장에게 불리한 진술을 했다가 개피 봤다 '에 등장하는 ▲▲▲에 대한 판결문 등 첨부" (증거목록 80번 , 증거기록 680쪽 )는 다른 사람들의 진술을 주된 내용으로 하여 검사가 작성한 문서로서 전문증거에 해당한다. 그런데 여기에는 진술자들의 서명 또는 날인이 없으므로, 위 (1)항에서 본 바와 같은 이유로 증거능력을 인정할 수 없다.

In addition, “Seoul Station - National Tax Service - National Assembly Verification, etc.” (Evidence List 184, Evidence Record 1518) is merely a document prepared by a prosecutor to report internal investigation processes and results. It is not admissible as evidence.

다만 , 위 문서들에 첨부된 자료인 사건정보 2부, 판결 사본 6부 , 법무법인 서 정의 인터넷 사이트 중 ▼▼▼ 고문 소개에 관한 출력물, 인터넷 사이트의 길 찾기 출 력물 등은 그 내용에 비추어 신용성이 담보되므로 , 형사소송법 제315조 제3호의 '기타 특히 신용할 만한 정황에 의하여 작성된 문서 ' 에 해당하여 당연히 증거능력이 인정된

(4) Each photograph (Evidence No. 62) of the 558 pages to 568 pages of the evidence record does not have any evidence to deem that there was any manipulation or error in the course of the shooting and rupture, and the attorney-at-law of the respondent also acknowledges the authenticity of its establishment without dispute over this point, and thus, the admissibility of evidence may be admitted notwithstanding the consent of the counsel.

(5) 그 밖에 피고인의 변호인들은 , 원심이 증거로 채택하지 않은 "수사보고(국세청 CCTV 설치장소 및 설치내역 확인보고)"(증거목록 202번 , 증거기록 1613쪽), "수사보고 (국민은행 수지성복지점 ◆◆◆ 과장 전화진술 청취)"(증거목록 255번 , 증거기록 2111 쪽 )를 유죄 인정의 증거로 위법하게 사용하였다고 주장한다. 그러나 기록과 원심판결을 살펴보면, 위 각 수사보고는 원심에서 증거로 채택되지 아니하여, 원심판결의 이유 중 증거의 요지에 포함되어 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 내용상으로도 이들이 범죄사실 인정 의 증거로 사용되었다고 보이지는 않는다.

B. Whether to accept bribe

(1) Criteria for determination

In a case where a defendant, who was selected as a bribe in the course of accepting a bribe, denies the fact of accepting a bribe and has no evidence, such as financial materials to support it, the defendant's statement alone must not only be admissible as evidence, but also have credibility to exclude a reasonable doubt. In determining the credibility of the statement, not only the rationality, objective reasonableness, consistency before and after the statement itself, but also its human being, and the existence of interest in the statement should also be examined (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4202, Feb. 14, 2008).

(2) Facts of recognition

Of the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts may be recognized if the remaining legitimate evidence and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, excluding those that are not admitted as evidence as seen above, are fully admitted and examined:

(A) Status and relationship between the Defendant and ○○○

1) The Defendant passed the 20th administrative notice in 1979, and served as a public official of the National Tax Service. From July 2004 to March 2005, through the Director General of the National Tax Service and the Director General of the National Tax Service from March 3, 2005 to July 3, 2006, the Defendant was designated as the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the President on July 3, 2006, and was appointed on July 18, 2006 through the National Assembly personnel hearing.

2) ○○○○ passed the 21st administrative notice in 1980, and served as a public official of the National Tax Service. A person who served as a public official of the National Tax Service, following the head of the National Tax Service’s general affairs division and the auditor, etc., the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office (hereinafter “the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office”) from June 30, 2006 to December 28, 2006, and thereafter the director of the National Tax Service’s bureau of real estate tax payment management.

3) At the time of the Defendant’s serving as a vice head as the National Tax Service, the ○○○ maintained close relations with the Defendant, such as having been in the position of an auditor, and having frequently talked with the Defendant.

(B) The circumstances leading up to the statement of offering of a bribe

1) During the process of the prosecution's investigation into the actual management owner, such as one corporation, Han River case, one corporation, one corporation corporation, one corporation corporation, and one corporation, and one corporation Domin Development, the fact that he granted KRW 100 million in cash as a bribe in relation to the tax investigation to ○○○, which was the head of Busan Regional Office on August 26, 2006.

2) On August 8, 2007, ○○○ was present at the prosecutor’s office and was investigated, and led to confession of the fact that he received a bribe as above from △△△△, and was detained on August 9, 2007 on the following day, and was charged with a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery) on August 16, 2007.

3) In the process of the prosecutor’s investigation, ○○○ stated to the effect that he/she would not make any statement about the place of use of KRW 100 million received from △△△△△△.

4) 그런데 2007. 8. 28. 동아일보에 의하여 위 뇌물수수 과정에 청와대 의전비 서관 ▷▷▷가 연루되었다는 의혹이 처음으로 보도된 이후, 다른 언론들의 보도가 잇 따르면서 중요한 사회적 관심사로 대두되었다.

5) On September 12, 2007, the prosecution seized and searched ○○○○○’s home, and searched ○○○’s office of the Director General of Real Estate Tax Payment Management Bureau in the National Tax Service with the consent of the principal and National Tax Service, etc., which led to the investigation of KRW 100 million against ○○○○.

6) 위 자택 압수 · 수색의 결과, 각종 예금통장 85개, 현금 151만 원, 미화 9,000달러, 액면 10만 원의 상품권 51장, 전별금 봉투 33개 등이 압수되었는데, 예금통 장은 해지되거나 이월된 것을 제외하면, ○○○ 명의의 통장 8개에 합계 1억 600여만 원 , 처인 ♠♠♠ 명의의 통장 6개에 합계 9,200여만 원, □□□ 명의의 통장 2개에 합 계 1,000만 원이 예치되어 있었던 것으로 나타나고, 전별금 봉투 중에는 금액이 200만 원으로 표시된 것이 4개, 50만 원으로 표시된 것이 1개 포함되어 있었다 .

7) On September 14, 2007, in the 2007 MBC news of the cultural broadcasting company, there has been a trend that prosecutor's office will be aware of the place of use of KRW 100 million. The ○○○ defense counsel reported that this money is a sensitive issue, and that if the place of use of KRW 100 million is revealed, the prosecution's position will be difficult."

8) In the above circumstances, ○○ stated that he first given money to the Defendant in relation to his personnel affairs on September 16, 2007 at the prosecution on September 16, 2007.

(C) Details of the trial

1) On November 1, 2007, the Defendant was summoned to the prosecution, received a bribe from the ○○○○○ on the charge of receiving the bribe, and was detained on November 6, 2007, and was indicted on November 23, 2007 as a violation of the Act (Bribery) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and was charged as a bribe on November 23, 2007, and was additionally charged with giving a bribe to the Defendant in addition to the receipt of the bribe from the △△△△○ even with respect to ○○○

2) On February 27, 2008, the Busan District Court found the Defendant guilty of the charges and sentenced three years and six months of imprisonment (four years of imprisonment with prison labor for the prosecution) to the Defendant, and sentenced 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor (five years of imprisonment with prison labor for the prosecution: five years of imprisonment with prison labor for the prosecution) to the Defendant. The Defendant and ○○○ filed all appeals against this case.

(3) Summary of ○○○’s statement

The summary of the statements made by ○○ in the Prosecutor’s Office, the lower court, and the competent court is as follows.

(A) The motive for the statement of offering of a bribe

1) In the situation where the people’s suspicions are concentrated on where the money received from △△△△ is used, and media reports are used as a conical engineer, it is no longer possible to conceal the truth and for a long time, and the truth was sufficiently recorded with the defense counsel, and the truth was revealed to be revealed. In the media, etc., it was difficult for the media, etc. to conceal the truth any more when reporting that the place of use is being used, and if it is revealed, it is difficult to keep the truth hidden (the prosecutor’s statement of October 5, 2007).

2) ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원을 받은 사실 및 ▷▷▷와 관련된 부분은 모두 인정 하였으나, 피고인에게 돈을 준 부분에 대해서는 차마 처음부터 사실을 실토하기 어려 웠다. 또한 ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원을 받은 혐의를 인정하고 재판을 받게 된 상황에서 그 돈 중 일부를 다른 사람에게 준 것이 밝혀지면, 그 상대방이 처벌받게 됨과 동시에 자신 또한 처벌받아야 할 죄가 늘어나게 되리라는 점도 부담스러웠다. 그리고 무엇보 다도 그 동안 진술을 꺼려했던 가장 큰 이유는, 국세청 조직의 수장인 피고인에게 돈 을 준 사실을 말하게 되면 자신이 몸담아 온 국세청 조직에 큰 타격을 줄 것이기 때문 이었다. 사실 뇌물 등으로 처벌받은 국세청 간부들은 나중에 법무법인의 고문 등이 되 어 국세청과의 관계를 계속 이어나가게 되는데, 국세청장인 피고인에 대한 부분을 발 설하면, 자신은 조직의 적이 되어 국세청과의 관계가 완전히 끝나게 되고, 그러면 자신 을 받아줄 곳도 없게 될 것이다. 그래서 자신은 피고인에 대한 부분을 묻어두고 혼자 안고 가려 했던 것이다(2007. 10. 29.자 검찰 진술조서).

3) 2007. 8. 22. 검찰에서 ( 0○○의 후임 부산지방청장 )와 접견할 당시 , 그가 피고인을 구체적으로 거명하면서, "◈◈◈ 청장에게 얼마를 주었는지는 모르겠지 만 , 그런 사실 말해 봐야 좋을 일 없다. 국세청에 근무하던 ▲▲▲ 과장이 검찰 조사 때 ▼▼▼ 전 국세청장에게 불리한 진술을 하였다가, 지금은 완전히 개피 보지 않았느 냐. 당신도 조직의 수장에 대해 잘 알아서 처신하라."라는 내용의 말을 하였다. 그 이 야기를 처음에도 하고 나중에 일어설 때에도 다시 하였다. 구속되어 있는 나에게 그렇 게까지 말하는 것에 화가 났었다(2007. 10. 5.자, 2007. 10. 29.자 각 검찰 진술조서).

From this point of view, the above words are one of the various backgrounds where the facts are known (original testimony).

(B) The motive for offering of a bribe

Since the personnel from the second half of 2006 was a very important person in relation to his position in the future, and since the defendant was the defendant who had a key, he did not have the key as an empty hand at the time of the defendant's delivery (the prosecutor's statement of October 5, 2007).

(C) The whole circumstances of the offering of a bribe

1) The prosecutor's protocol of statement dated September 16, 2007

Since August 2006, the main office of the National Tax Service had an opportunity to read Defendant at a regional tax office meeting, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the regional tax office") at the main office of the National Tax Service (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the regional tax office"). The head of the National Tax Service sent KRW 10,000 to Defendant two times at the office of the National Tax Service (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the regional tax office") and paid KRW 20 million to Defendant two times at the office of the National Tax Service and KRW 10,000 at the sports competition. On January 207, 2007, the sports competition was held at the 10,000 U.S. dollars at the office of the National Tax Service (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the regional government office") and around October 2006. The head of the regional government office ordered the head of the National Tax Service office to make a business report to the office of the National Tax Service, and the head of the regional government ordered Defendant 1 to provide money.

2) The prosecutorial protocol of October 5, 2007

On July 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service sent money to the defendant at the office of office. On August 24, 2006, the National Tax Service of the National Tax Service of the Republic of Korea, the tax office of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the year of August 24, 2006, the tax office of the Republic of Korea of the year of August 24, 2006, the amount of KRW 20 million, and the amount of KRW 10 million upon the annual approval of the tax office of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of November 3, 2006, the amount of KRW 10,000 when leaving the country of January 3, 2007, the amount of KRW 10,000 was not KRW 10,000,000 in the document bags, and the amount of KRW 20,000 in the official plastic bags of the government administration of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea.

3) Prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol dated November 21, 2007

On July 5, 2006, 2000 won was found as the defendant's house and did not want to refer to this part. During the course of the comparison investigation, the defendant was forced to see that the defendant's talk about it is wind to put him or her out, and then he or she was forced to put him or her into the inspection. -

C.

(D) source of the fund

1) The prosecutor's protocol of statement dated September 16, 2007

For three times, the sum of KRW 50,000,000,000, which was paid to the defendant, was received from 10,000 won, and USD 10,000,00,00, was used in ordinary foreign countries.

2) The prosecutorial protocol of October 5, 2007

At the time of the appointment of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, KRW 10 million and KRW 10 million were kept in custody at the office. However, at the time of being appointed to the head of the Busan Regional Government Office, he collected the money in advance from the branch, finite, finite, etc., and collected the money in advance, and there were some other cash.

At the time of the inspection of the state, KRW 20 million and KRW 10 million were the money received from KRW 10 million when the National Tax Officials Doctrine.

10,000 US dollars when the defendant leaves the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea, and in the past, when the defendant leaves the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea, the branch people gather the money

3) The prosecutor's protocol of statement dated 29 October 2007

At the time of the first offer of a bribe at the prosecution on September 26, 2007, it was known that the Defendant’s memory was the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000, which was paid to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the time of his/her appointment, from among the amount that the Defendant gave to the Defendant, was not the money received from the △△△△△△. However, in a situation where the prosecutor was asked on the premise of the location of the money received from the △△△△△△△△, if disclosed, the said money could not be the same as if disclosed. However, when undergoing the next investigation, the prosecutor immediately stated that the said money was not received from the △△△△△△△△△△△, and added to the relevant part of the written statement as of September 26, 2007, the statement stating that “10,000,000 won was kept separately.”

(iv) testimony at the trial;

It was intended to make a statement only on the part received money from the △△△△△, but the statement that was made on the day when the National Tax Service was held and the tax office was held on the day when the tax office was held was held and the date when the statement was made was made.

(e) Individual grant.

1) The point of cash delivery of KRW 20 million on July 5, 2006

On July 6, 2006, 2006, the local office of the head of the regional office, and around July 5, 2006, at around 22:00, the air rate of 22:0,00, the air rate of 22:0,000, called Seoul, called the Defendant's telephone, entered the Defendant's house and entered the Defendant's house.

2) The point of delivery in cash of KRW 10 million on July 18, 2006

A) Statement of prosecutorial statement of October 5, 2007

Although memory is not clear, there was a unique schedule between the defendant and the head of the local office in an official schedule on July 18, 2006 or on the preceding day. The waiting in the so-called waiting in the so-called waiting room, the atmosphere where the inside and outside of the brush room was waiting, and entered the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to KRW 10 million. The same was the same as the business report.

B) The protocol of interrogation of the suspect of the prosecution of November 21, 2007

It is the same day that the National Tax Service had Germany on the day before or on the day of the appointment. Since July 17, 2006, the day before it is a public holiday, it is reasonable to pay money on the day of the appointment.

C) Witness of the court below

취임식 날은 상당히 바쁜날이었기 때문에, 짬짬이 시간을 봐서 연락해 달라고 비서실에 말한 뒤 연락을 받고 피고인과 만난 것이 아닌가 생각한다.

(d) testimony at the trial;

Although it is not known that there was an official model schedule for the days of appointment, each head of the local office individually made a report on duties and a person who was reduced.

3) The point of delivery in cash of 10 million won on August 24, 2006

A) Statement of prosecutorial statement of October 5, 2007

Before this day, the head of the regional office has given the direction that the local office should separately notify the defendant of the business, and the defendant has given the document bags containing KRW 10 million in cash.

B) The testimony of the court below

국세청장집무실로 방문하기 전에 미리 시간약속울 잡았는지 정확한 기 억이 없다. 공식적인 행사로 가면 개별적으로 통보를 받을 수도 있으나, 짬짬이 비서실 에 연락을 해 보고 시간이 되면 연락을 달라고 하였다. 개별면담 일정이 있었고 업무 보고서를 간단히 만든 것으로 기억된다.

(c)a testimony of a trial;

However, it is thought that the work report was prepared in advance and made a simple report.

4) On October 10, 2006, the delivery of 20 million won in cash

A) Statement of prosecutorial statement of October 5, 2007

이날은 국정감사와관련하여 공식 일정이 아니라 피고인에게 돈울주기 위하여 찾아갔던 것이고, 올라간 김에 서울대 행정대학원 동기인 국회 재경위원회 수 석전문위원 ■■■ 를 만나고 왔다 . 당일인지 전날인지 기억나지 않으나, 국세청장 비서 실을 통하여 면담 약속을 잡고 올라갔다. 회의용 탁자에 앉아서 피고인과 이야기를 좀 나누다가 현금 2,000만 원이 든 플라스틱 사각 파일박스를 주었는데, 오래 있지는 않 았던 것 같다. 국정감사를 받으면 돈을 쓸 일이 많아지기 때문에 평소보다 많은 2,000 만 원을 주게 되었다. 돈을 주고 나와서 아마 택시를 타고 국회에 가 ■■■를 만난 것 같다.

B) The protocol of interrogation of the suspect of the prosecution of November 21, 2007

The time when the defendant was divided by the defendant in the office room of the National Tax Service is short, and the defendant wants to leave only a few madsss in his match with him.In order to enter the office building of the National Tax Service, it is not accurate memory or memory that he went using the passage of the left side of the office building.

C) Witness of the court below

It is thought that there was almost little time to keep money in the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by simply keeping in the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and without standing to sit. Although it is not accurately memory, it is the same as immediately entering the office of the secretary, and the same is the same as having been talked in advance to the secretary on the preceding day. On the same day, the traffic segment listed in Busan was changed from the air segment to the train (KTX) on the air segment, and it was about to be faced with the time in which the first weak medicine belongs. In view of the result, the commitment time was later than 2 p.m., and the time when the defendant was coming out of the office of the office of the secretary of the National Tax Service. The time of promise was considered to have been earlier than 2 p.m., and it was considered that the defendant was little in the office of the secretary, and it was same as the time that

In order to put up KRW 20 million in cash, two documents bags have been prepared, so it is far away from the snow, and more think that there is a file box in the office of the head of Busan Regional Office, and all of them entered money.

In the event that a taxi is deprived of, the majority of the Korean National Tax Service would be ging through the passage of the office of the National Bank before the National Bank of Korea. The occupation is not accurately memoryed as to whether the taxi was potable at the train. Even at the time of the office, the location of the taxi is not memory. At around 14:16, the call between the dedicated auditor and the dedicated auditor was the date of contact, but there was no time to contact the office of the dedicated auditor, and there was no urgent need to find it on the will.

(d) testimony at the trial;

There is no memory that the cab was going in the future of the 1st century in the office building, and that the cab was on board where the cab is located. There is no memory in other places after arrival in Seoul. There is a prior contact with the brue room, but it may have been talked at the site.

5) The point of delivery in cash of 10 million won on November 3, 2006

On November 3, 2006, the National Tax Service Research Institute was held at the National Tax Service, which is a member of the National Tax Service. The head of the regional office, prior to this, ordered the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to make a business report at the main office to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the defendant alone makes a simple business report, and made a cash of KRW 10 million (the prosecutor's statement by October 5, 2007).

6) A point of delivery of USD 10,000 on January 3, 2007

From the head of Busan Regional Office, there are more important personnel who is transferred to the Director General of the Real Estate Tax Payment Management Bureau of the main office, and there is no expectation that the defendant would not be granted personnel, so the defendant could not neglect the defendant, and thus, he paid USD 10,00 to travel expenses abroad (the prosecutor's statement of October 5, 2007).

(4) The credibility of ○○○’s statement

(A) The consistency of the statements

1) The whole circumstances of the offering of a bribe

A) At the time of the first statement on September 16, 2007 at the prosecutor’s office (hereinafter “first statement”), the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, when there is an opportunity for the Defendant to read at the office of the National Tax Service, the amount of KRW 10 million twice every three times, and KRW 20 million at the same place at the sports competition. At the same time, all of the documents bags or plastic file boxes were placed in cash, and around January 2007, the amount of USD 10,000 was placed in a letter bag at the time of the Defendant’s business trip from a foreign country. The number of times and place of delivery, each amount of payment, and the method of packing as stated in the above statement have been consistently maintained until the trial at the court at the same time.

In addition, on November 21, 2007, the prosecution's interrogation was conducted on five occasions, and on July 5, 2006, the fact that the defendant's house found the amount of KRW 50 million in cash was added to USD 10,000,000 in addition to the above five times, and on July 5, 2006, the fact that the defendant's house added cash of KRW 20,000 has been consistently maintained until the court of the trial.

When compiling the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it stated that OO○ stated that it would be able to give 20 million won in cash on July 5, 2006 only before the public prosecutor takes office, and that it would be 1, 2007 when the defendant received her money from ○○○○, while he denies the fact that he received her money from her, the defendant stated that "I would like to do this part of her money before her taking office. I would like to see why I would like to her that she would not do so, and that I would like to see that she would have received money from OO before her taking office, and that she would be 1,000 won in the process of her questioning."

According to this, it is judged that O0 has been silently without disclosing the above 20 million won in the initial period of the statement of offering of a bribe, and the circumstances leading up to additional statements after the criminal investigation into the opposite nature of the defendant and the opposite nature of the statement are very natural, and the credibility of the entire statement is enhanced.

B) On September 16, 2007, with regard to the portion that the OOO○ ordered KRW 10 million at the time of the initial statement, and around October 2006, an athletic meeting was held at the military sports unit’s hospital located in Sungnam-si. On that date, the head of the regional office issued the National Tax Service’s business report to the head of the office of the National Tax Service, and ordered the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to comply with the sports meeting. The head of the office of the National Tax Service made a statement that the National Tax Service paid money by confirming the schedule of the National Tax Service and making a statement through the materials provided by the prosecutor on October 5, 2007. The head of the regional office corrected the statement that the National Tax Service made on the date of national annual approval, which was the lowest tax official on November 3, 2006.

Upon compiling the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, a tax official’s annual conference was opened at the National Tax Service’s National Tax Service’s National Tax Service Education Center from around 15:30 on November 3, 2006 to around 19:30 on the basis of the defendant’s prior order. The head of the local government including the defendant, at the National Tax Service’s main office from around 09:30 on the same day to around 10:10 on the same day, reported his duties individually to the defendant at the National Tax Service’s office. The above annual conference prepared a entertainment time to drink and drink together with the other participants, and in this case, ○○○ was not holding a sports competition for the second half of 2006, and ○○○○ National Tax Service’s real estate management was held on April 207.

However, in light of the contents revealed at the time of the initial statement on September 16, 2007, the above events were held in Seoul B in 2006, and the head of the local office above ordered the Defendant to make a business report to the main office of the National Tax Service, and it is consistent with the above supporting organization in the part of the Defendant’s business report. As seen above, as seen above, the National Tax Service’s sports meeting was not held in the second half of 2006, and the above supporting organization did not have been held in the National Tax Service’s sports meeting in the second half of 2006, and the hours for drinking and interesting had been established like the sports meeting, it is reasonable to view that ○○○○ offered money at the time of the first statement by ○○○ was a separate sports meeting from the above supporting organization around that time. It is not meaningful to view that there was confusion as a mere annual event of the National Tax Service’s exercise of memory for about 1 year prior to that of the National Tax Service.

As to this point, in the prosecution on October 29, 2007, it appears that "one case that is called a sports competition in fluencies, and this case is fluencing a tax official's annual conference at a short time. The annual conference was held by a large number of people, and was held in flucing and holding a long-term flucing at the sports center, and was held in flucing and holding in flucing. The National Tax Service had been in the flucing sports unit in flucence and holding in flucence. The National Tax Service had been in the flucing sports unit in flucen. The National Tax Service confirmed the schedule of the National Tax Service, which was shown by the prosecutor, and in the latter part of 2006, there was no sports competition, and it was known that it was flucing with the schedule."

Therefore, the content of the statement in the part of the OOO's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''' competition' does not hinder the consistency of the 's '

C) Meanwhile, in the first statement on September 16, 2007, the OO stated that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service frequently held a meeting of the head of the regional office. At that time, each local office head made the Commissioner of the National Tax Service exclusive in office and paid money to the Defendant three times before and after the meeting. However, following the first statement, from the prosecutor’s statement made on October 5, 2007 (hereinafter “the second statement”) the payment of money three times as above, it was made by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 18, 2007, the national meeting of the head of the tax office on August 24, 2007, and the national meeting of the National Tax Service on October 10, 2007, which was made on October 10, 2007, regardless of the official schedule of the National Tax Service’s National Tax Administration. Such three days were the first statement made on October 24, 2007, and thus, there is room for consistency with the head of the local office.

그런데 원심이적법하게 채택 ·조사한 증거들을 종합하면,OO0이 2006. 6. 30.경부터 2006. 12. 28.경까지 부산지방청장으로 근무하는 동안 국세청장이 지방청장들을 국세청 본청으로 소집하여 회의를 개최한 일은 없는 사실( 다만 2006. 7. 6. 피고인이 국세청장으로 지명된 상태에서 국세청 차장의 직분으로 ★★★ 전 국세청 장을 대행하여 지방청장 회의를 주재한 사실은 있으나, 이와 관련해서는 앞서 본 바와 같이, ○○○이 위 회의에 참석하기 위하여 그 전날인 2006. 7. 5. 서울에 올라왔다가 피고인의 집으로 찾아가 2,000만 원을 준 것으로 2007. 11. 21. 이후 추가 진술을 하였 으므로, 여기서 문제되는 지방청장 회의와는 관련이 없다), 위 기간 동안 지방청장들까 지 참석대상으로 하여 국세청 본청에서 개최된 공식 행사로는 2006. 7. 18. 개최된 국 세청장 취임식, 2006. 8. 24. "따뜻한 세정 실천을 위한 세무관서장 결의대회 "라는 이 름으로 개최된 전국 세무관서장 회의가 있었을 뿐인 사실(2006. 11. 3. 수원에 있는 국 세공무원교육원에서 전국 세무공무원 연찬회가 개최되기도 하였으나, 이에 대해서는 이미 살펴보았다), OOO은 부산지방청장으로서 위 두 행사에 모두 참석한 외에, 2006. 10. 10. 국세청 본청의 공식 일정과는 무관하게 국정감사와 관련하여 서울에 올 라간 사실이 인정된다.

이와 관련하여OO0은2007.10.29. 검찰에서, "2007.9. 16. 변호인 과 접견을 마치고 나서 에게 돈 줬다는 부분을 진술하기 시작한 때가 오후 늦게 부터였고, 일요일이어서 구치소로 돌아갔다가 다음날 와서 조사를 받겠다고 말하니, 검 사가 대강의 조서라도 받아야 한다고 하여, 1시간도 안 되는 시간 동안 간단히 조서를 작성하였다. 당시 일정표나 달력 같은 것도 전혀 없는 상태에서 구체적으로 특정하여 진술하기 어려우니, 일정표와 달력을 보여주면 기억을 확실히 해서 진술하겠다고 검사 에게 말하였다. 구속되어 있는 상태에서 날짜나 행사일정을 정확히 알 수 없고, 한 번 에 돈을 준 것이 아니라 올라갈 때 나누어 준 것이어서, 일정표도 없이 확실하게 말할 수는 없었다. 그런데 검사가 일단 ◈◇◈ 청장에게 돈을 줬다는 사실만이라도 간단하 게 조서를 작성하고, 자세한 내용은 다음 조사 때부터 말하면 된다고 하여 진술을 하 게 되었다. 그 과정에서 착각을 일으킨 부분도 있고, 알고 있던 부분을 상세히 말하지 못한 부분도 있었는데, 그 다음부터 조사를 받으면서 상세하고 정확하게 이야기를 하 였다."라고 진술하였다. 실제로도 기록에 의하면, 검찰은 2007. 9. 16. ○○○의 최초 진술 이후, 2007. 9. 27. 부산지방국세청으로부터 ○○○의 일정에 관한 자료를 입수하 고 , 2007. 9. 30. 국세청 및 조세일보의 인터넷 홈페이지를 통하여 피고인의 일정에 관 한 자료를 입수한 사실이 인정되어, ○○○이 2007. 10. 5. 두 번째 진술을 할 무렵에 야 그에게 국세청의 일정에 관한 자료를 제공하였던 것으로 보인다.

In full view of the above circumstances, the primary purpose of the OO○ intended to speak in the initial statement seems to have been to have been revealed that ○○○ opened a meeting of the National Tax Service from time to time by giving money to the Defendant whenever there is an opportunity to be enrolled in the main office of the National Tax Service. Furthermore, ○○○ was personal work that ○○○ paid money to the Defendant, regardless of the official event or visit of the National Tax Service, was personal work that ○○ had taken in mind, giving money to the Defendant, and such official event or visit was only an opportunity for ○○ to face with the Defendant only, and the said official event or visit was no longer considered as an important day to face the Defendant. Moreover, considering the fact that ○○○ opened a meeting of the National Tax Service with the presence of the National Tax Service in the course of the initial statement, it appears that ○○○ had been held in the National Tax Service from time to time without any limit on his or her ability to memory for one year due to an error or detention of the National Tax Service at the time of the above statement.

D) Therefore, as long as the contents of the OO’s statement are consistently maintained from the first statement of the prosecutor’s office to the court of the trial at the trial at the trial at the court, it is difficult to view that the consistency of the statement about the acceptance of bribe goes beyond the bounds of memory when the first statement was made, solely on the ground that there were some inaccurate statements arising from the limitations on the credibility of the testimony at the time of the first statement concerning the official exercise or the name of visit, etc. of the defendant face-to-faced.

(ii) the source of the fund

A) As to the total amount of 70 million U.S. dollars and 10,000 U.S. dollars, which OO○ stated that he was the Defendant, it was used to gather and store the previous separate money and other money received from ordinary people in house with respect to the cash amount of 20 million U.S. dollars delivered on July 5, 2006, and the statement to the effect that it was used as the collection of travel expenses from ordinary people when he was paid to ordinary people in foreign countries on January 3, 2007, it was consistent with the prosecution since the prosecutor's office, to the trial court.

나) 다만,2006.7. 18. 교부한 현금1,000만 원, 2006.8.24. 교부한 현금 1,000만 원, 2006. 10. 10. 교부한 현금 2,000만 원, 2006. 11. 3. 교부한 현금 1,000만 원 등 합계 5,000만 원에 대해서는, ① 2007. 9. 16. 검찰에서의 최초 진술 당시 , ☆☆ ☆으로부터 받은 1억 원 중 5,000만 원을 사용한 것이라고 하였다가, ② 2007. 10. 5. 두 번째 진술 당시에는, 그 중 2006. 7. 18. 및 2006. 8. 24. 교부한 합계액 2,000만 원 은 집에 개인적으로 보관하고 있던 돈이었고, 2006. 10. 10. 및 2006. 11. 3. 교부한 합 계 3,000만 원은 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈이었는데, 2006. 10. 10. 교부한 2,000만 원은, ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈 중 일부를 부산지방청장 사무실로 가져가 다른 돈과 함께 보 관하고 있던 것을 가져가 준 것이어서, ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈 외에 다른 돈도 일부 섞여 있었을 것이라고 하였고, ③ 당심 법정에서는, ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈과 개인적 으로 모아둔 돈을 아파트 서재에 같이 놓아두고 필요할 때마다 사용하였기 때문에 2006. 11. 3. 교부한 1,000만 원이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈이라고 정확히 구분할 수는 없다고 하였다.

그리고 OO○은 2007.10.5.검찰에서의 두 번째 진술당시,언제인가 처에게 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원 중 집에 보관하고 있던 돈을 두고 필요하면 알아 서 꺼내 쓰라고 말하여, 처가 그 중 일부를 고등학교 3학년생이던 딸의 교육비와 생활 비 등으로 사용하였을 것이라고 말하였는데, ○○○의 처인 ♠♠♠이 2007. 10. 26. 검 찰에 제출한 진술서에 의하면, 2006. 9. 중순경 ○○○이 서재의 수납공간에 있는 가방 (☆☆☆으로부터 현금 1억 원이 든 채로 받았던 것이다 )을 가리키며 저 안에 돈이 있 으니 필요하면 꺼내 쓰라고 하여, 가방을 열어보니 2,000만 원 정도가 들어있기에, 딸 의 과외비를 비롯하여 가사에 사용하였다고 되어 있다.

According to this, at the time when the O00 on November 3, 2006, the amount received from the △△△△ was almost not left in the house at the time when the defendant was reduced to KRW 10 million. Therefore, considering that ○○○ received money from the △△△ in the court of a political party, all of the money received from the △△△△ was kept in the bank, not in the bank, but in the bank, some of the money personally collected and stored in the book of the correspondence was put into the west on the book of the correspondence, it seems that the money received from the above KRW 10 million was not much much.

Therefore, regarding the source of funds of the above 50 million won, it shall be deemed that the OO was a money received from the △△△△△ in the last statement of the prosecution, but it is ultimately final after having made several statements in the court of the trial, which was delivered on October 10, 2006 and delivered on November 3, 2006, only a part of the 20 million won out of the total amount delivered on November 3, 2006, and the remainder is a money collected individually. In this regard, the above 50 million won statement of the ○○○○○○ on the source may be deemed to have been changed to be a money collected individually. In this regard, it may be said that the above 50 million won statement is not consistent and it may be said that it is contradictory before and after the point of view.

C) On the other hand, ○○○○○○’s first statement was made on September 16, 207, and the prosecutor’s statement was written on the 10th day before the date of ○○○○○○’s initial statement. However, it was written on the 1st day after the first statement that KRW 50 million was received from the ○○○○○. However, it was written on October 29, 200 that “The first day was kept by the prosecutor.” In this regard, ○○○ stated on the 10 million statement to the Defendant that “the first day of ○○○○○ was not recorded on the 6th day before the public prosecutor’s initial statement, but on the 10th day after the 6th day of ○○○○○’s initial statement, the first one was not recorded on the 10th day after the 6th day after the receipt of the said money from the prosecutor’s office. However, it was doubtful that the 10th day of the 2nd day was not on the second day.

On October 25, 2007, with regard to whether the money received from the △△△△△ was stored and managed by dividing the money into one’s own money, the Prosecutor’s Office included “a small space used as a warehouse in the apartment book,” and “a small space used as a warehouse,” and “the money previously posted was stored in the book book of the book.” In the trial court, “the source of the money was left in the same place and used whenever necessary, so it cannot be accurately distinguishable from the book of the △△△△△△△△△ because all the money was used.” It was not kept in the book received from the two, but some parts were stored in the book to separately use the money.” “The money was not stored in the book of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and it was not distinguished whether the money was money paid in using the money several times,” and “The money was not money paid to the Defendant for several times.”

라) 위와 같은 OO0의진술내용을종합하여보면, OO○이 ☆☆☆으로부 터 1억 원을 뇌물로 수수한 과정에 ▷▷▷가 연루되었다는 의혹이 언론에 의하여 대서 특필되어 커다란 사회문제로 대두되고, 그 때문에 검사가 위 1억 원의 사용처에 대하 여 집중적으로 추궁을 하게 되자, ○○○은 위 1억 원의 사용처 가운데 법적으로 문제 가 될 만한 부분은 피고인에게 돈을 준 것 외에 특별히 없으므로, 피고인에게 돈을 준 내용만 밝히면 될 것으로 생각하고, 2007. 9. 16. 검찰에서의 최초 진술 당시 위에서 본 바와 같이 피고인에게 네 차례에 걸쳐 합계 5,000만 원의 돈을 주었다고 밝히게 된 것으로 보인다. 그리고 위 5,000만 원 중 2006. 7. 18. 국세청장 취임식 때 1,000만 원 을 준 것은 2006. 8. 26. ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원을 받기 전의 일이어서 위 1억 원과는 무관한 것이라는 점을 위 진술 당시 이미 알고 있었거나 그 진술 직후에 곧바로 알게 되었고, 또한 2006. 8. 24. 전국 세무관서장회의 때 1,000만 원을 준 것은 ☆☆☆으로 부터 1억 원을 받기 전인지 여부가 잘 기억나지 않아 위 1억 원과의 관련성이 불명확 한 상태였는데도, 이들 부분까지 포함하여 진술을 하게 된 것은, 피고인에게 돈을 준 사실을 털어놓기로 결심한 이상, 굳이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈으로 준 부분에만 엄밀 하게 국한하여 진술을 하려고 애쓸 필요가 없기 때문이었던 것으로 보인다. 이와 관련 하여 OOO은 2007. 10. 29. 검찰에서 , "제가 거짓말을 하는 것이라면, 1억 원을 그대 로 에게 주었다고 하거나, ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈으로 6,000만 원을 한꺼번에

에게 주었다고 하면, 검사님도 편하고 저한테도 유리하지 않겠습니까? 지금의 언론보도 태도라면, 제가 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈 중에서 ◈ 청장에게 준 돈을 제 한 나머지 7,000만 원은 누구에게 주었느냐고 계속 의혹을 제기할 것입니다. 하지만 저는 4회에 걸쳐 5,000만 원 및 그 외에 1만 달러를 주었다고 하였습니다. 제가 거짓 말을 꾸며내려 한다면, 도대체 왜 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈이 아닌 것도 포함하여, 그것 도 여러 번에 걸쳐 나누어 주었다고 하겠습니까."라고 진술하였는데, 이러한 진술내용 은 충분히 설득력이 있는 것으로 보인다.

In addition, among the 20 million won which was brought to the office of the head of the Busan Regional Office on October 10, 2006, the fact that there was a mixture of some other money except the money received from the △△△△, which was made by the office of the head of the Busan Regional Office, is more concrete and clear, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it undermines the consistency of the statement.

In full view of the statements made on November 3, 2006, KRW 10 million, which was delivered on November 3, 2006, it is determined that a significant portion of the statements made with the OO○ is not the money received from the △△△△△, but other money that was stored in the house. The contents of the initial statement reveal contradictions from the contents of the initial statement, but the ○○○ placed the money in the apartment book with the money received from the ○○○○○○○○○, managing or using the said money, and it seems that there was no need to do so. In light of the fact that at the time of the initial statement made on September 16, 2007, it seems that the contradictions appearing in the statement made in this part do not significantly undermine the consistency of the statement.

As a result, ○○○○’s statement on the source of the fund amounting to KRW 50 million over four times between July 18, 2006 and November 3, 2006, among the money that the Defendant gave to the Defendant, seems to be somewhat consistent. However, it seems that the degree of undermining the credibility of the entire statement on the offering of a bribe is not to be prejudicial to the credibility of the entire statement on the offering of a bribe.

(iii) a blank gap between the initial and the second statements;

According to the records, after the O0 made the first statement on September 16, 2007 by the prosecutor's office on the offering of a bribe, the second statement was made on October 5, 2007, and the second statement was made on October 5, 2007, and the ○○○ was also going to the prosecutor's office eight times. Nevertheless, the question seems to be raised on the ground that no statement was made with respect to ○○○ was made during the above period.

However, according to the above, after the public prosecutor made the first statement of OO on September 16, 2007, the public prosecutor obtained data on the schedule from the Busan regional tax office on September 27, 2007, and obtained data on the defendant's schedule through the Internet homepage of the National Tax Service and the Tax Day on September 30, 2007, and it was possible for ○○○ to provide the defendant with data on the schedule of the National Tax Service during the time when he made the second statement on October 5, 2007, and ○○○ was also able to make more concrete statements on the process of offering the bribe at its expense by confirming such data. In light of this, it is determined that the blank period between the first and second statements does not hinder the consistency or credibility of this ○○'s statement on the offering of bribe.

(B) The rationality and objective reasonableness of the statement contents

1) The motive for offering of a bribe

According to the records, the OOOO served as a public official of the National Tax Service for a period of 30 years since passed the administrative notice in 1980. At the time of the offering of the bribe in this case, the officer of the highest class of the second class position was to the head of Busan Regional Office, who is the head of the Seoul Regional Office, the head of the Central Regional Office, the head of the National Tax Service, the vice head of the National Tax Service, and the head of the National Tax Service as the vice head of the organization.

따라서 OO○으로서는 향후자신의 입지와관련하여 위와 같은 상위직으 로 승진할 수 있도록 혼신의 힘을 기울여야 하는 상황에 있었고, 이를 위해서는 새로 국세청장에 취임하여 인사권자가 된 피고인과의 관계를 돈독하고 원만하게 유지해 나 갈 필요성이 컸을 것이므로, 이러한 점에 비추어 보면, 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 자신의 인사희망을 실현하기 위하여 ▷▷▷와 같은 청와대 관계자에게 청탁을 하면서까지 승 진에 대한 강한 집착을 보인 ○○○이, 부산지방청장으로서 서울로 올라가 국세청장인 피고인을 만날 기회가 있을 때마다 빈손으로 인사를 하지 않고 돈을 주게 되었다고 하 는 진술은, 그 동기에 있어서 충분히 수긍할 수 있는 것으로 판단된다.

2) The frequency of offering of the bribe

C00 stated that, at any time, the defendant was given one time among the money received from △△△△△△, the defendant did not make a simple statement, at any time, and all times the defendant was given USD 10 million to KRW 20 million or USD 10,000,000 over the five following cases whenever there is an opportunity to face with the defendant.

As seen earlier, as well as the contents of the OO’s prosecutorial statement, in the process of having the user of KRW 100 million received from the △△△△△△△△△, and having the Defendant make a false statement in order to be exempted from the said statement, it would be clear that the Defendant made a face-to-face statement with the Defendant after receiving the money from the △△△△△△, and there was a way to easily avoid controversy over the truth. However, it can be said that the statement that the ○○○○ stated that the Defendant provided money to the Defendant on five occasions before and after receiving the money from the △△△△△△△△△△△ was a way to reveal the authenticity and credibility of the statement of offering of bribe.

3) The date and place of the offering of a bribe

The O0 stated that on July 5, 2006, only once on July 5, 2006, the defendant was found as the house of the defendant, and that all the money was paid to the defendant in the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service.

However, according to the records, the defendant's home is recognized as a grown-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul 1684-dong, *** Dong*, and the OO's home is the same as that adjacent to the 1685 grack apartment*********, the defendant's home grown-dong, and it is a close distance to contact about about five minutes.

Here, on July 5, 2006, ○○○ offered money to the Defendant at the home of the Defendant at the night prior to the meeting of the local head of the local head office held at the same time. On July 18, 2006 or on August 24, 2006, when it is not easy for the Defendant to individually face due to the official schedule and duties of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, it may be doubtful that it would be more easy to give money to the Defendant at the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rather than to give money to the Defendant at the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in light of the difference in the situation where it is difficult for others to face with each other as the date of the meeting of the head of the tax office on August 24, 2006.

이와관련하여OO0은 당심 법정에서, 피고인이 국세청장으로 지명되기 까지 자신이 나름대로 기여를 한 것으로 생각하고, 2006. 7. 5.에는 국세청장으로 지명 된 것을 축하하고 인사를 하기 위하여 특별히 피고인의 집으로 찾아가 돈을 주었는데, 그 이후로는 피고인이 자신의 상관이기도 하고, 국세청 조직의 수장으로서 워낙 업무 내외적으로 바쁠 것이기에 일부러 시간약속을 잡아 집으로 찾아가는 것보다는 공식적 인 일정이나 비공식적인 행사 등으로 국세청 본청에 올라갈 기회가 있을 때에 국세청 장 집무실에서 피고인에게 돈을 주는 것이 보다 간편하였다는 취지로 진술하였다.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, in order to attend a local office meeting held by the National Tax Service on July 6, 2006 at night on July 5, 2006, which was the preceding day, theO0 arrived at the Seoul Roon's home, and the defendant was found to have met at the defendant's home, and other facts that ○○○ used to find the defendant as the defendant's house in front of the defendant's house at a golf meeting on several occasions except for the fact that ○○ opened the defendant as the defendant's house and opened the car on several occasions, and there is no other fact that the defendant was appointed as the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 3, 2006.

If so, at the time of the OO's finding as the defendant's house at night on July 5, 2006, it appears that the deceased person was appointed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 3, 2006 and was under official taking place on July 18, 2006, the two titles, and during that period, the deceased person was in close relation with the defendant's house, and the defendant was sufficiently in need or motive to personally carry out congratulatory activities, and the defendant also seems to have been naturally able to accept the defendant's house without demanding such visit. In addition, except on July 5, 2006, the fact that the ○○○○○ appears to have no other official finding as the defendant's house to face with the defendant, in view of the fact that the defendant was on duty after taking office as the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and that there was a lot of inconvenience or inconvenience for the defendant's family member to take part of the defendant's house at the time other than the defendant's house.

On the other hand, on July 18, 2006 and August 24, 2006, the OO○ stated that, on the date of appointment of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 18, 2006 and on the date of the National Association of Tax Offices, it was specific for the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to look for the Defendant or pay money to each office of the National Tax Administration, and whether it was before the event, and that it was not well memory, which can be said to be in excess of the limit of memory for the previous work for more than one year.

(iv) Method of cash delivery;

O0 included 10 million won in cash from the recipient on July 18, 2006 and August 24, 2006 and November 3, 2006, respectively, 10 million won in a document bag of the size in which the paper of “A4 is entered,” and 20 million won in cash on October 10, 206, when reducing the amount of KRW 20 million in cash, 1 million in a plastic private file box and again put 20 million in a stable room, and again, the paper of which the National Tax Service attached to the National Tax Service was stored in the room, and entered the above document bag or plastic file with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service with the report or the documents attached thereto.

When compiling the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be found that the above 10,000 won Daz. 10,000 won is actually entered in the above scam bags, 20,000 file boxes are well entered in the same scambling 20,000 won, and if the defendant was listed in the National Tax Service at the time of the head office of Busan Regional Office, he may see the fact that the defendant was not on the scambling with the st

As above, it is difficult to make a statement without direct experience that cash 10 million won and 20 million won may be added to the document plastic plastic file boxes. However, on September 16, 2007, when the prosecutor’s first statement was made at the prosecutor’s office on September 16, 2007, ○○, who was in a place where it is difficult to conduct an experiment as to whether he could receive money in advance, can not be seen as having made a statement on this part. The fact that ○○ voluntarily made a statement on this part, which was in a place where ○○, was in a place where it is difficult to see whether he could receive money in advance, is actually reliable to have the Defendant paid money in such a way.

(v) source of funds;

앞에서 살펴본 바에 의하면,OO0이피고인에게 2006. 7. 5. 교부한 2,000만 원, 2006. 7. 18. 교부한 1,000만 원, 2006. 8. 24. 교부한 1,000만 원 및 2006. 10. 10. 교부한 2,000만 원 중 일부, 2006. 11. 3. 교부한 1,000만 원 중 상당부분은 ☆ ☆☆으로부터 받은 돈이 아닌 것으로 나타나는데, ○○○은 그 자금의 출처에 관하여, 지인들로부터 받은 전별금과 그 밖의 돈을 모아둔 것이라는 취지로 진술하였다. 그리 고 2007. 1. 3. 피고인에게 교부한 미화 1만 달러는 평소 해외에 나갈 일이 있을 때 지 인들로부터 여비로 받은 돈을 모아둔 것인데, 특히 2005년경 중앙공무원교육원에 파견 되어 교육과정을 이수하는 기간 동안 외국에 나갈 일이 많았다고 진술하였다.

As a result of the prosecutor's office conducted a search and seizure on the OO's home on September 12, 2007, 33 of the pre-paid bags received by C○○ from subordinate employees, including the head of the competent tax office, at the time of his service as the head of Busan Regional Office, and from other branch employees. Among them, 4,50,000 won is indicated (OO is presumed to have been indicated) as the amount of KRW 2,00,000, and 9,000 U.S. dollars was found. In addition, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that ○○○○ and its wife used a credit card for one year 206 year, including KRW 9,00,000, KRW 2,300,000, KRW 2,0000, KRW 2,0000, KRW 2,0000, KRW 2,500,000.

Around December 28, 2006, the head of the Busan Regional Office stated that an advance bags received at the time of transfer to the head of the real estate management bureau of the main office from the head office to the head office of the Busan Regional Office would have received a considerable amount of advance payment from subordinate employees, including the head office of a tax office, and from other branch employees. Therefore, even if the auditor of the main office has transferred the amount to the head office of Busan Regional Office on June 30, 2006, it would be presumed that he received a considerable amount of advance payment from around 00 U.S. dollars, as well as from around 06 U.S. dollars, it would be difficult to view that 0 U.S. dollars, which was the head of the Gwangju Regional Office, had been issued to the head office of the National Tax Service to receive advance payment from 00 U.S. dollars and from 2006 to 200 U.S. dollars in light of the above fact and the fact that 200 U.S. dollars had been used as national tax education.

6) Whether each of them was poisonous on July 18, 2006 and August 24, 2006

A) On July 18, 2006, and August 24, 2006, 2006, O○○ made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that there was an official setting of a schedule to report or hold an interview with the Defendant by the head of the regional office of tax office on the day of the public prosecutor’s office meeting, and that there was an official announcement as to whether there was such an official figure in the lower court and the court of the first instance, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service stated to the effect that the Defendant was given money by finding the office of tax office and having an individual interview with the Defendant.

However, the record shows that, at the time of the above event, the head of the local office did not officially establish a schedule to report the duty to the defendant or hold an interview.

As long as it is confirmed that all O0 events were held, the issue of whether the head of the National Tax Service officially planned to make a business report or interview to the defendant individually from the office of office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service during that time or whether there was such an event is belonging to the past’s objective and non-defensive factual area. The accuracy of the ex post facto truth of ○○○○○’s ○○○’s ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the OOOO's statement made by the head of the regional office to make a report on the business or interview with the defendant by preparing materials for the report on the business of the head of the regional office during the time of each of the above events, unlike the actual ones, is false or false. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the OOOO's statement made by the head of the regional office in preparation for materials for the report on the business of the defendant or interview with the defendant was false or false. Rather, it is difficult to say that the statement made by the head of the regional office of the Busan Regional Office whenever the defendant was given an opportunity to face a face-to-face by attending the exercise of the headquarters of the National Tax Service as the head of the Busan Regional Office, and there was no official business report or interview with the head of the regional office of the National Tax Service, or whether the face-to-face opportunity was scheduled by the official business report or interview, or that it was merely merely a mere mere mere personnel management, due to a lack of sufficient limits in the last one year or more.

B) Even if there was no official provision for each head of the regional office on the day of the above event, as to whether ○○○’s finding the Defendant as the office room by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and individually met the Defendant, the ○○○ consistently stated to the effect that, inasmuch as there was no opportunity for the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to see the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in the prosecutor’s office, the lower court, and the trial court, the head of the regional office, upon being listed in the National Tax Service’s main office, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service would have the personnel in the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. On the day of the above event, ○○ consistently stated to the effect

이와관련하여OO0의 후임부산지방청장이었던 ◇◇◇는 원심 법정 에서, 부산지방청장으로 부임한 이후 피고인을 독대한 사실이 있는데, 국세청 본청에 가면 국세청장에게 인사를 하는 것이 일반적이라고 진술을 하였고, 피고인의 여비서였 던 ♡♡♡도 검찰에서, 지방청장들이 방문하면 일반적으로 국세청장과 독대를 한다고 진술을 하여, ○○○의 위 진술을 뒷받침해 주고 있다.

C) Meanwhile, in the prosecutor's office and the court below's decision, the defendant did not find a separate personnel in the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service even if the head of the regional office is in the office of the National Tax Service, and since the executive officers in the main office report are too bad to the extent that they do not have any remaining time to give them a report, the head of the regional office could have jointly engaged in personnel affairs at the time of the event, but the head of the regional office stated that he did not separately engage in personnel affairs other than the official schedule.

그리고 당시 광주지방청장이었던 <<<는 원심 법정에서,2006.7.18. 국세청장 취임식 당일 지방청장들이 모여 단체로 인사를 한 것 같은 기억이 나는데, 지방청장이 공식 행사로 국세청 본청에 올라갔을 때 일반적으로 국세청장과 개별적으 로 만나 별도의 인사를 하지는 않는다고 진술하였다. 대구지방청장이었던 ▶▶▶도 검 찰과의 전화통화에서, 국세청장 취임식 당일 국세청장 집무실을 방문하였는지 확실치 는 않지만, 갔다면 다른 지방청장들과 함께 갔을 것 같다고 진술하였다. 대전지방청장 이었던 ◀◀◀은 검찰과의 전화통화에서 , 국세청 본청에 갈 때 국세청장에게 보고할 내용이 없으면 일부러 찾아가 독대를 하지는 않는데, 2006. 8. 24. 전국 세무관서장회 의 당일에는 독대를 하지 않았던 것 같다고 진술하였다. 오는 원심 법정에서 앞에 서 본 진술내용과는 달리, 국세청 본청에 가서 국세청장 집무실에 혼자 인사하러 들어 간 적은 거의 없다고 진술하기도 하였다.

그러나 국세청의 최고위급간부로서 지방에 내려가 근무하는 지방청장 들이 가끔씩 개최되는 국세청의 공식 행사에 참석하기 위하여 본청에 올라와서도 조직 의 수장인 국세청장에게 찾아가 인사를 하지 않는다거나 국세청장인 피고인이 이러한 인사를 받지 않으려 하였다는 것은 상식적으로 납득하기 어려운 점, 지방청장인 ◁◁ ◁ , ▶▶▶, ◀◀◀, 가 국세청장인 피고인과 맺은 상하관계, 이들 중 ◁◁◁는 원심 법정에서 , 지방청장들이 본청에 가면 국세청장에게 인사를 하러 갈 수도 있고 안 갈 수도 있는데, 자신은 혼자 인사한 적도 있고 그렇지 않은 적도 있다고 진술하기도 한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위에서 본 피고인의 진술은 그대로 믿기 어렵고, ◁◁◁, ▶ ▶▶, ◀◀◀, 의 각 진술 역시 믿기 어렵거나, ○○○이 위 각 행사 당일 피고 인을 개별적으로 만났음을 인정하는 데 방해가 되지 않는 것으로 보인다.

라) 국세청장 비서관(4급 서기관)이었던 △△스은 검찰 및 원심 법정에서, 위 각 행사 당일 지방청장들이 피고인과 개별적으로 면담하는 일은 없었고 , 그 대신 만찬 때에 만나 서로 이야기를 나눌 수 있었으며, ○○○이 국세청장 집무실로 들어가 인사를 하였다면 특별한 일로서 기억이 나야 할 것인데, 그러한 기억이 없는 것으로 보아 방문한 사실이 없었을 것이고, 또한 그가 결재판과 보고서류 외에 다른 물품을 가지고 들어갔다면 이 역시 특이한 일이어서 기억이 나야 할 것이나, 그런 기억이 전 혀 없다고 진술하였다. 국세청장 비서(5급 사무관)였던 ▽▽▽도 검찰에서, 지방청장들 이 본청의 회의 등에 참석하는 경우 별도로 국세청장 집무실을 방문하여 인사를 하는 경우는 없었고, 오찬이나 만찬에서 이야기를 나누었는데, ○○○이 위 각 행사 당일 국 세청장 집무실을 방문한 기억은 없다고 진술하였다. 국세청장 여비서 (9급)였던 ♡♡♡ 는 2007. 10. 31.자 진술서와 검찰 및 원심 법정에서의 진술을 통하여, 2006. 7. 18 . 국 세청장 취임식 날에는 지방청장들이 다 함께 국세청장 집무실을 방문하여 피고인에게 인사를 하였고, 2007. 8. 24 . 전국 세무관서장 회의 날에는 ○○○이 국세청장 집무실 로 찾아오지 않은 것으로 기억되며, 지방청장들이 인사를 하러 오더라도 피고인과 독 대를 하지는 않고, 결재판 외에 다른 물건을 가지고 들어가는 경우도 없었다고 진술하 였다.

그러나 기록에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 △△스, v▽ ⑦, ♡♡♡는 피고인에 의하여 국세청장의 비서진으로 발탁되거나 유임된 자들로서, 피 고인의 절대적 영향력 하에 있으면서 그와 긴밀한 유대관계를 맺고 있었던 점, 이들이 검찰에 출석하여 조사를 받기 전인 2007. 11. 2. 당시 피고인의 변호인이던 SBS 변 호사의 사무실로 찾아가 이 사건과 관련한 이야기를 나눈 바 있는 점, 그 당시 나눈 이야기의 내용과 관련하여, BB 변호사는 2008. 1. 18.자 경위서를 통하여 이들에게 ○○○이 국세청장 집무실로 찾아오는 것을 보았는지 여부에 관하여 확인하였다고 밝 힌 반면 , △△△, ▽▽▽, ♡♡♡는 검찰에서, BBB 변호사로부터 단순히 검사의 질문 에 사실대로 이야기하면 된다는 말만 들었다고 진술한 점 , △△△과 ▽▽▽은 위 각 행사 당일 ○○○이 국세청장 집무실로 찾아온 기억이 없다고 진술한 반면, ♡♡♡는 국세청장 취임식 날에 ○○○이 다른 지방청장들과 함께 방문한 사실이 있다고 진술한 점, △△△은 원심 법정에서 국세청장 취임식 날에 ▶▶▶ 대구지방청장이 사전 약속 없이 찾아와 돌려보낸 적이 있다고 진술한 반면, ♡♡♡는 원심 법정에서 △△△이 국 세청장 집무실로 찾아온 지방청장을 돌려보낸 기억이 없다고 진술한 점 , ♡♡♡가 원 심 법정에서, 2006. 11. 3. 전국 세무공무원 연찬회 날에 지방청장들이 찾아와 피고인 에게 업무보고를 할 때까지는 ○○○을 잘 몰랐다고 진술한 점, 그리고 평소 본청 내 외의 간부들과 직원들 및 다른 손님들이 쉴 새 없이 드나드는 국세청장실에 근무하는 비서들이, 1년 이상 전에 지방청장 한 명이 두 차례의 행사 때에 국세청장 집무실로 찾아온 사실이 있는지 여부 및 간부들 중에서 결재판과 보고서류 외에 서류봉투를 함 께 소지하고 들어간 사람이 있는지 여부 등에 관하여 정확히 기억을 하기란 상당히 어 려울 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, △△△, ▽▽▽, ♡♡♡의 위 진술도 그대로 믿기 어렵다.

7) Circumstances in which the Defendant did not bring about ○○○○’s personnel desire

A) According to the record, ①OOO was the end of December 2006, and around October 2006, the Defendant received a proposal from the office of the Director General of the National Tax Tribunal, which is a first-class position under the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and refused to transfer the position within the National Tax Service on the ground that he wanted to be promoted from the office of the second-class position to the head of the Seoul Regional Office, who is the first-class position, or the second-class director of the Central District Office, and wish not to transfer the position to the head of the Busan Regional Office, which is the first-class position, or to the head of the Busan Regional Office, who is the second-class position. The Defendant wanted to transfer the position to the head of the Busan Regional Office, which is the second-class position or the second-class director of the National Tax Service. The Defendant did not want to transfer the position to the head of the ○○ Local Office, which is the second-class officer of the National Tax Service, to the head of the National Tax Service.

Even if the defendant received money from OO0 in several times in relation to personnel affairs, it is doubtful that the defendant did not want to take his personnel affairs in the above two times, and he received USD 10,00 from O0 in relation to the overseas business trip from O0.

However, above all, the personnel evaluation and reliability of the subjects' ability and character work importantly, and in addition, the region of origin and the school, age, number of presses, career, etc. may be affected by external factors as well as the external factors. Thus, it is not easy to expect that the defendant has a close relationship with ○○○ in this period and received money over several times. It is not easy to expect that ○○○ is able to contain the desire of OO in the important high-ranking personnel affairs of the National Tax Service. This does not require that the defendant paid a large amount of money before the National Tax Service’s personnel affairs to a certain position while giving money to ○○○○○○ in advance, but rather, it is difficult for the defendant to receive money from 10 million won to 20 million won in consideration of the fact that he did not have to have received money from ○○○○ in consideration of the fact that he did not have to have received money from 10 billion won in consideration of the fact that he did not have to have received money from ○○.

In this regard, the Defendant’s defense counsel stated to the effect that, at the meeting of the audience gallery held by the Defendant around December 2006, the Defendant made public his/her duty of care to ○○○ in connection with his/her business, the Defendant’s defense counsel met himself/herself for the purpose that he/she would be able to use his/her personnel issues only when he/she uses it for a new light. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s defense counsel is a person who

그러나 기록에의하면, 변호인들이 문제를 삼은 위 지방청장회의라는 것은 2006. 12. 11. 개최된 화상 간부회의로, 그 당시 피고인은 부산지방청과 광주지방 청의 종합부동산세 신고관리 실적이 저조함을 지적하면서, "지금 서울에서 평균이 28 % 정도 되는데, 부산은 22% 예요. 이거 어떡하려고 그러세요. 전년 동기에 비하여 64 % 입 니다. 이게 지금 1/3 수준이에요. 광주도 마찬가지고, 앉아서 받을 상황이 아닙니다." 라 고 말한 다음, 연말을 맞아 지방청장들 및 모든 간부들이 업무에 보다 노력을 기울여 달라는 취지의 훈시를 하면서 , "인사할 때 엉뚱한 데 '빽' 이나 쓰게 하지 말고 그 사람 들 통해서 그런 거 좀 하라고."라고 말한 사실이 인정되는데, 자신의 인사를 위하여 외 부의 다른 사람들을 동원하지 말고 업무 실적을 높이는 데 그런 사람들을 활용하라는 취지의 뒷부분 이야기가 ○○○을 특별히 겨냥하여 한 말로 보이지는 않고, 종합부동 산세 신고관리 실적과 관련하여 광주지방청장과 함께 부산지방청장인 ○○○에게 좀더 분발할 것을 촉구하는 취지의 앞부분 이야기는 ○○○으로부터 돈을 받은 것에 구애되 지 않고 업무에 관하여 충분히 지적할 수 있는 정도의 것으로 보인다.

B) Meanwhile, even after the Defendant’s refusal of the Defendant’s position as the Director General of the National Tax Tribunal on September 3, 2006 or around October 10, 2006 and the relationship was initiated, it may be deemed that the Defendant’s motion on November 3, 2006 at the national tax official’s annual conference provided KRW 10,000 again to the Defendant, while being transferred to the Director General of the Real Estate Tax Payment Management Bureau of the main office, which is deemed not to be an essential position without accepting one of his own scar in the personnel affairs at the end of December 2006, and on January 3, 2007, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant continued to pay USD 10,00 for travel expenses.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the record, i.e., O0 appears to have been omitted from the date of refusal of the Defendant’s position at the lower court and the court of first instance, but the Director of the National Tax Tribunal stated that his relation had not been terminated. Even if ○○○○ was the date of refusal of the position of the Director of the National Tax Tribunal, and the relationship between the two parties was somewhat small, it seems that ○○○○, prior to the post of important personnel at the end of December 2006, would have been necessary to restore and maintain the relationship with the Defendant with whom the right of personnel was entitched, and it appears that it was necessary for the Defendant to receive money again from 00 on or around November 2006 to 10 on the part of the Defendant, and that ○○○○○○○ had continued to be an opportunity for the Defendant to receive money from 00 on the last day of December 206 to 20 on the part of the head office of the Republic of Korea.

8) Reasons why the offer of a bribe has been retired;

According to the records, for five days from April 2, 2007, in England and Sweden, the defendant was found to have been traveling abroad on March 30, 2007 in order to hold a meeting with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service of the United Kingdom and Sweden. However, in relation to this, ○○○ stated that the defendant was paid money for travel expenses, etc., and it may be doubtful about the reason why the defendant retired the offer of a bribe to the defendant while he was hired on April 2, 2007.

In this regard, ○0 stated that ○○○○’s above statement seems acceptable in light of the fact that ○○○ was continued from the personnel on April 2007 to the Director-General of the Real Estate Tax Payment Management Office on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, through various channels, would give up the Defendant’s promotion, etc. to the National Tax Service; and (b) if so, the Defendant would no longer bring money to the Defendant. In fact, in light of the fact that ○○○ continued from the personnel on February 2007 to the Director-General of the Real Estate Tax Payment Management Bureau, ○○○○’s statement appears to be acceptable.

(c) The motive and interest of the statement;

1) ○○○이 2007. 8. 9. 구속된 이후, ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원의 사용처 에 관하여 2007. 9. 16. 에 이르기까지 한 달 이상의 오랜 기간 동안 묵비한 점, 국세청 의 고급 간부들이 퇴직 이후에는 법무법인이나 회계법인 등에 종사하면서 국세청과의 업무관계를 계속 이어나가게 되는데, 자신이 국세청 조직의 수장인 피고인에게 뇌물을 공여하였다고 진술을 하게 되면, 피고인은 물론이고 국세청 조직 전체의 위신과 명예 에도 상당한 손상을 입히게 되는 등 사회적 파장이 매우 클 것이어서, 그 반작용으로 조직의 구성원들로부터 거센 비난을 받고 따돌림을 당하게 될 것이며, 그 결과 국세청 조직과의 인적 관계가 단절되어 버려 퇴직 후의 업무활동도 기대하기 어렵게 되리라는 사정을 잘 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, ○○○은 당초 ☆☆☆으 로부터 1억 원을 받은 사실은 순순히 자백하면서도 그 사용처에 대하여는 묵비하면서 피고인에게 돈을 준 부분을 밝히지 않으려고 노력하였으나, 언론에 의하여 위 1억 원 의 뇌물수수 과정에 ▷▷▷가 연루되었다는 의혹이 제기된 이후 추측성 보도에 특검수 사 이야기까지 나오면서 사회적으로 파문이 커지고, 그 때문에 검찰이 위 1억 원의 사 용처에 관한 수사를 본격화하여 자신의 자택에 대한 압수 · 수색을 하는 등 압박을 가 해 오자, 고혈압 등으로 건강도 좋지 않은 상태에서 더 이상 버티지 못하고 피고인에 게 돈을 준 사실을 털어놓게 된 것으로 보인다.

2) 그리고 원심이 적법하게 채택 · 조사한 증거들을 종합하면 , ○○○이 2007. 8. 22. 소와 접견하면서 들은 ▲▲▲의 사례는, ▼▼▼ 전 국세청장이 ■■■ 그 룹의 회장 ■■■으로부터 감세청탁을 받고 서울지방국세청 조사과장이던 ▲▲▲에게 세무조사를 무마하도록 지시하여 직권을 남용한 외에이▣▣ 그룹의 사장으로부터 1,000만 원 및 1만 달러의 뇌물을 수수한 것으로 2003. 12. 16. 구속되어 제1심에서 실 형을 선고받았다가, 2004. 8. 18. 항소심에서 집행유예의 선고를 받고 약 8개월 만에 석방된 이후 법무법인의 고문으로 활동한 반면, ▲▲▲은 위 세무조사와 관련하여 5,000만 원의 뇌물을 수수한 것으로 2003. 6. 3. 구속된 이후, ▼▼▼의 범죄사실에 한 진술 및 증언을 하여 위 유죄판결의 증거를 제공한 자로서 , 자신은 위 뇌물수수죄 로 징역 5년을 선고받고 항소 및 상고가 기각되어, 약 3년 8개월 동안 복역하다가 특 별사면으로 출소한 사실을 가리키는 것으로 인정된다.

이와 관련하여◇◇◇는 검찰 및 원심 법정에서, 피고인으로부터 OO○을 찾아가 면회하여 보라는 지시를 받고 접견을 한 다음 피고인에게 그 내용을 보고한 사 실은 있으나 , 접견 당시 ○○○에게 피고인을 구체적으로 지칭하면서 조직의 수장에 대하여 잘 알아서 처신하라는 등의 말을 한 바는 없고, ▲▲▲의 사례를 든 것은 남 의 이야기를 발설하면 좋지 않더라는 의미에서 말한 것으로, ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈 을 정치권에 주었다고 말하면 언론에 보도되어 청와대도 골치 아프고, 국세청 조직에 도 좋지 않을 텐데 그렇게 할 필요가 있느냐는 뜻이었다고 진술하였다.

그러나 ◇◇◇가 피고인의지시를 받고 OO○을접견한 다음 피고인에게 그 내용을 보고한 점, ▲▲▲은 자신이 몸담고 있던 조직의 수장이던 국세청장에 대 하여 불리한 진술을 하였던 자여서, 그의 사례가소의주장처럼 국세청 외의 정치 권 인사에 대한 적절한 비유가 될 수 있다고 보기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면 , ○○ ○에게 피고인을 구체적으로 지칭하여 말한 바 없다고 하는소의위 진술은 그대 로 믿기 어렵고, ○○○의 진술대로 가 ○○○에게 ▲▲▲의 예를 들면서 피고 인에게 얼마를 주었는지 모르지만 조직의 수장에 대하여 알아서 잘 처신하라고 말한 것으로 인정된다.

Then, when the OOOOO listens to the purport that the part related to the defendant is not to make a statement among the places of use of KRW 100 million from the place of residence in which the defendant was detained, it seems that the defendant sent the remaining part of the defendant's mind that he was forced to promote the defendant's security rather than to know about the person's confidence who was detained in the place of bribery, and that the defendant sent the above words, and there was a growing sense of mind, and the defendant did not disclose the fact that he had made money to the defendant, so that the original intention that ○○ intended to protect the defendant was considerably weak, and therefore, it seems that ○○ became a factor that ○○ made the statement of the offering of bribe.

3) 한편, ○○○이 2006. 12. 말의 인사를 앞두고 피고인으로부터 재정경제부 산하 국세심판원장 직의 제의를 받고도 이를 거절하면서까지 국세청 내의 1급 직위인 서울지방청장이나 중부지방청장으로 승진하기를 원하였고, 그것이 여의치 않으면 2급 직위 중 요직에 해당하는 국세청 조사국장으로 전보되거나 최소한 부산지방청장으로 유임되기를 희망한 사실, 그런데 피고인이 2006. 11. 내지 12.경 ○○○에게 다시 본청 의 2급 직위 중 한직으로 여겨지는 국세공무원교육원장 직을 제의 하자, ○○○은 ☆☆ ☆을 통하여 ▷▷▷에게 국세공무원교육원장으로 가지 않고 서울지방청장이나 중부지 방청장으로 갈 수 있게 도와달라는 취지의 청탁을 한 사실, 그 결과 2006. 12. 말의 인 사에서 국세공무원교육원장으로 전보되지는 않았지만, 자신의 희망 또한 모두 받아들 여지지 않은 채 요직으로 여겨지지 않는 본청의 부동산납세관리국장으로 전보된 사실 , 그리고 2007. 4. 인사에서도 서울지방청장이나 중부지방청장 , 아니면 본청 조사국장이 되고 싶어하는 자신의 희망과는 달리 부동산납세관리국장으로 계속 유임된 사실은 앞 서 본 바와 같다.

In relation to the personnel affairs of the National Tax Service, the OO○ made it difficult to make a statement at the prosecutor’s office that it would be at any disadvantage that she would be at any disadvantage due to another person’s wrong personnel affairs.” (Statement of September 16, 2007) and “The National Tax Service did not have any money related to the original personnel affairs of the National Tax Service, but it did not have any food culture that should not give money to it. However, in recent 10 years, there was an atmosphere where the atmosphere would no longer change in the atmosphere, making a statement to this effect.” (Statement of October 5, 2007).

그리고 기록에의하면, ○○○은 2007.9. 16. 검찰에서 최초로 뇌물공여 진술을 하기에 앞서, 그 전날인 2007. 9. 15. 구치소에서 동생 ♥♥♥과 면회를 하면서 "내일 검찰청에 조사를 갈지 모르겠다.", "조사받으러 가기 전에 변호사를 만나보면 좋 겠다.", "내일 조사받으러 가는데, 잘 되어야 할 텐데."라고 말한 사실이 인정된다.

위 인정사실에의하면, ○○○은 2006.12. 말 및 2007.4. 등 두 차례에 걸쳐 단행된 국세청 인사의 과정에서, 그 동안 피고인에게 수차례에 걸쳐 돈을 주고 ▷▷▷와 같은 청와대 인사에게 청탁을 하면서까지 자신의 희망이 이루어질 수 있도록 최대한의 노력을 기울였음에도, 피고인이 끝내 자신의 희망을 들어주지 않고 오히려 요직이 아닌 본청의 부동산납세관리국장으로 전보하거나 유임을 시켜 버리자, 이러한 피고인의 인사내용에 반감 및 피해의식을 가지게 된 것으로 보인다. 그리고 검찰에서 처음으로 뇌물공여 진술을 하기 전날에는 미리 준비를 하는 듯한 언동을 보이기도 하 였다.

그러나 앞서 본 진술의동기에다가, 기록에 의하여 인정되는다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ○○○은 대학을 졸업하고 1980년에 행정고시에 합격한 이후 30년 가까이 국 세청에만 근무하여 부산지방청장 및 본청 부동산납세관리국장 등의 최고위급 간부에 이른 자로서 국세청 조직에 대한 각별한 애착을 보이고 있는 점, 피고인과는 오랜 기 간 국세청에서 가까이 지내왔고, 특히 피고인이 국세청 차장으로 있는 동안 감사관으 로 근무하면서 매우 긴밀한 관계를 유지하였을 뿐만 아니라, 이주성 전 국세청장이 임 기 중에 갑자기 사퇴를 함에 따라 피고인이 그 후임 국세청장으로 취임하기에 앞서 차 장으로 국세청장 직을 대행하여 2006. 6. 말의 인사를 단행할 때, 당초 ★★★ 전 국세 청장에 의하여 정책홍보관리관으로 예정되어 있던 ○○○을 요직인 부산지방청장으로 발령하여 주는 등, 2006. 12. 말의 인사에 이르기 전까지는 협력적이고 호의적인 관계 를 지속하여 온 점, 2007. 9. 16. 검찰에서 처음으로 뇌물공여의 진술을 하기에 앞서 자신의 변호인들에게 이미 피고인에게 돈을 준 사실을 밝힌 바 있는 점 등까지 종합하 여 보면, 앞서 본 사정들만으로는, ○○○이 자신의 상사이자 오랜 기간 가까이 지내온 피고인과 등을 돌림으로써 안팎으로부터 신의를 저버린 사람이라는 거센 비난을 받음 과 아울러, 자신이 30여 년의 공무원 인생을 온전히 다 바쳐 온 국세청 조직과도 관계 가 단절되고 배척당하는 엄청난 불이익을 감수하면서까지, 조직의 수장인 피고인을 상 대로 터무니 없는 허위의 사실을 꾸며내어 모해를 하였을 것이라고는 도저히 보기 어 렵다.

4) 피고인의 변호인들은, ○○○이 피고인에게 돈을 준 것으로 진술을 함으로 써 , ① ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원 중 위와 같은 진술에도 불구하고 여전히 밝혀지지 않고 있는 대부분 금액의 사용처에 대한 수사가 제대로 이루어지지 못하고 사실상 종 결되어 버리는 이익을 누리게 되었을 뿐만 아니라, ② 자택에 대한 압수 · 수색을 통하 여, 차명계좌를 포함한 수십 개의 통장에 수억 원의 자금이 예치되어 있는 사실이 드 러나고, 수십 개의 전별금 봉투 및 여비 등으로 받은 것으로 보이는 상당액의 미화도 발견되었으며, 또한 통화내역 조회를 통하여 ♤♤♤이라는 여자와 매우 빈번히 통화를 하거나 문자메시지를 교환한 사실이 나타나기도 하였는데, 이러한 개인비리나 치부에 대한 조사를 면제받고, 전별금 교부자 등의 지인들에 대하여도 수사가 확대되는 것을 막을 수 있었으며, ③ 당초 언론에 의하여 보도되어 매우 민감한 사회적 관심사로 대 두되었던 ▷▷▷와 국회의원 ①00 등 청와대 및 정치권 인사의 연루 여부에 대한 의 혹이나 그에 대한 수사도 무마할 수 있었고, ④ 자신에 대하여 보더라도 ☆☆☆으로부 터 받은 돈 중 상당부분을 다시 조직의 수장인 피고인에게 '상납'하여 주었다고 함으로 써 국세청 조직에 잘못된 풍토가 있는 것처럼 호도하여 자신에 대한 사회적 비난을 희 석하고 형사재판에서도 유리한 양형자료로 내세울 수 있었던 것으로 보인다고 주장한

변호인들의 위 주장 중 먼저,☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원 중 나머지 대부 분 금액의 사용처에 대한 수사가 제대로 이루어지지 않은 채 종결되었다는 점에 관하 여 살피건대, ○○○이 2007. 9. 16. 검찰에서의 최초 진술 당시 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원 중 5,000만 원을 피고인에게 주었다고 밝힌 이후, 2007. 10. 5. 두 번째 진술에 서 국세청의 일정 자료와 ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원을 받은 일자를 비교하여 위 5,000만 원 중 2,000만 원은 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈과 무관한 것으로 진술을 정정하게 되었 고 , 남은 3,000만 원에 대해서도 그 중 2006. 10. 10. 교부한 2,000만 원 중에는 부산 지방청장 사무실에 함께 보관해 두었던 개인자금이 일부 섞여 있었을 것으로 본인에 의하여 보충설명이 이루어졌으며, 2006. 11. 3. 교부한 1,000만 원은 처인 ♠♠♠의 진 술에 의하여 그 중 상당부분이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈과는 관계없는 것으로 나타난 점은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그러나 기록에 나타나는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① ○○○이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 돈과 피고인에게 준 돈 사이의 연관성에 관한 위와 같은 진술의 추이에 대하여, 검사는 ○○○에 대한 조사과정 전반을 통하여 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1 억 원 중 피고인에게 준 돈을 제외한 나머지 부분의 사용처에 관하여 지속적으로 신문 을 한 점 , ② 이에 대하여 ○○○은 위 1억 원 중 3,000만 원 정도는 피고인에게 주었 고 , 2,000만 원 정도는 처에게 주어 고등학교 3학년생인 딸의 사교육비 및 생활비 등 으로 사용하게 하였으며, 나머지 5,000만 원 정도는 부산지방청장 사무실로 가져가 부 산지방청의 운영경비 및 직원들에 대한 격려금 등으로 사용하였는데, 위와 같은 사용 처 가운데 특별히 문제가 될 만한 부분은 피고인에게 준 것 외에는 없다는 취지로 진 술함으로써, 피고인에게 준 돈을 제외한 나머지 부분의 사용처에 대하여도 묵비를 하 지 않고 나름대로 이를 밝힌 점, ③ ○○○은 ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원을 모두 현금으로 받아 그대로 자택 등지에 보관하다가 사용하여 버린 것으로 보여, 검찰로서도 ○○○ 의 진술에 의존하는 외에는 그 자금의 사용처를 추적할 수 있는 마땅한 방법이 없었던 것으로 보이고, 달리 이에 관한 객관적 자료나 단서도 나타나지 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면, ○○○이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원의 사용처에 관하여 검사의 추궁을 받은 끝에 피고인에게 돈을 주었다고 진술함으로써 위 1억 원 중 피고인에게 준 돈과 무관 한 7,000만 원 이상 부분의 사용처에 대한 추가수사가 제대로 이루어지지 않은 채 종 결되었다는 위 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

둘째, OO○의 자택에 대한압수 ·수색 및통화내역조회를 통하여 드레 난 비리 및 치부에 관한 조사를 면제받고 관련된 지인들에 대한 수사 확대도 막을 수 있었다는 점에 관하여 살피건대, 기록에 나타나는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 위 압수 · 수색으로 발견된 각종 예금통장 85개 중 해지가 되거나 이월된 것을 제외하고 실제로 살아 있는 계좌는 ○○○ 명의의 8개에 1억 600여만 원, 처인 ♠♠♠ 명의 6개에 9,200여만 원, □□□ 명의의 2개에 1,000만 원 등 합계 16개 계좌에 2억 800여만 원 정도인데, ○○○의 당심 법정 진술에 의하면, 그 중 □□□는 자신이 다닌 대학원 정 책과정 동기생들의 부인들이 결성한 친목회의 회장으로 그 모임의 운영자금을 위와 같 이 예치한 것이고, 이를 위 친목회의 총무인 자신의 처가 보관하고 있었던 것이라고 하며, 이러한 진술내용을 굳이 감안하지 않더라도, OOO의 나이와 그 동안의 경력 및 사회적 지위, 그리고 자신의 아파트 외에는 달리 특별한 보유재산이 없는 것으로 보이 는 사정을 고려하면 , 위 예금액이 과다한 것이라고 보기는 어려운 점, ② 위 통장들 외 에 미화 9,000달러와 액면 10만 원의 상품권 51장, 전별금 봉투 33개, 현금 151만 원 등이 함께 발견되었고, 그 중 전별금 봉투들은 주로 ○○○이 부산지방청장으로 근무 할 당시 부산지방청 소속 세무서장들과 부하 직원들 및 기타 지인들로부터 받은 것으 로 , 금액이 200만 원으로 표시된 것이 4개, 50만 원으로 표시된 것이 1개 포함되어 있 으나, 검찰이 ○○○으로부터 피고인에게 돈을 주었다고 하는 자백을 받아낸 것에 대 한 일종의 대가로 위와 같은 미화, 상품권의 출처와 전별금 교부자들에 대한 수사를 면제하거나 묵과해 주기로 하였다면 , 이에 관한 자료를 드러내지 말았어야 할 것인데 도, 피고인에 대한 증거기록에 위 압수 · 수색의 결과에 대한 자료를 포함시켜 제출함 으로써 재판과정에 그대로 공개한 점, ③ ○○○과 ♤♤♤이라는 여자 사이에 통화 및 문자메시지 교환이 빈번하게 이루어졌다는 것은 이 사건과는 무관한 사생활의 영역에 속하는 사항으로 보이는데, 이와 관련하여 두 사람 사이에 어떠한 부정한 관계가 있었 다고 볼 아무런 자료도 나타나지 않는 이상, 이에 관한 변호인들의 주장은 아무런 근 거 없는 막연한 추측이나 의혹 제기에 불과하다고 할 수밖에 없는 반면, 검찰은 위 두 사람 사이의 통화내역 자료도 압수 · 수색 결과의 자료와 마찬가지로 증거기록에 포함 시켜 제출함으로써 이를 떳떳이 재판과정에 공개한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 변호인들의 위 주장도 받아들이기 어렵다.

셋째, ▷▷▷와 000 등과 같은 청와대 및 정치권 인사의 연루 여부에 대한 의혹이나 그에 대한 수사를 무마할 수 있었다는 점에 관하여 살피건대, 기록에 나타나는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① ○○○은 ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원의 뇌물을 수수한 것으로 구속되어 수사를 받을 당시 이미 ☆☆☆을 만나 돈을 받게 된 과정에 ▷▷▷가 관여한 사실을 진술하였을 뿐만 아니라, 위 1억 원의 사용처와 관련하여 피고인에게 돈을 주었다는 진술을 하게 된 이후에도, 2006. 12. 말의 국세청 인사와 관련하여 ▷▶ D에게 국세공무원교육원장으로 전보되지 않고 자신이 희망하는 서울지방청장이나 중 부지방청장으로 가거나 아니면 부산지방청장으로 유임될 수 있게 해 달라는 청탁을 한 사실을 순순히 진술하였으며, 이와 같은 진술은 ☆☆☆이 검찰에서 진술한 내용과도 대체적으로 일치하여 , ○○○에게는 ▷▷▷에 관한 부분을 묵비하거나 은폐함으로써 그를 특별히 보호해 주려는 뜻이 없었던 것으로 보이고, 오히려 ○○○은 2007. 10. 5. 검찰의 두 번째 진술에서 "▷▷▷의 부탁이 아니었다면 처음 보는 업자의, 그것도 부 산지방청에서 세무조사를 받고 있던 업자의 돈을 받지는 않았을 것입니다. 중요한 인 사를 앞둔 저로서는 ▷▷▷처럼 정부나 청와대에 영향력이 있는 사람의 심기를 거스르 기 어려웠습니다. 그런 점에서는 ▷▷▷가 원망스럽습니다."라고 말하기까지 한 점, ② ○○○이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 1억 원 중 일부를 ▷▷▷나 ①00 와 같은 청와대 및 정치권 인사 등에게 주었다고 보거나 합리적 의심을 가질 수 있는 아무런 자료도 나타 나지 않는 등, 그가 30년 가까운 공무원 인생을 온전히 바쳐 온 국세청 조직의 최고 수장이자 그 동안 긴밀한 관계를 맺어 온 상관이기도 한 피고인을 모해하여서라도 보 호해 주어야만 할 어떠한 외부 인사가 있다고 볼 만한 정황이 인정되지 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면, ○○○이 이와 관련하여 2007. 10. 5. 검찰에서의 두 번째 진술 당시, " 제 가 없던 일을 만들어서 평생 몸담아 왔던 조직의 수장을 음해하려고 하겠습니까? 제가 거짓말로 돈을 줬다고 한다고, 그 거짓말이 드러나지 않겠습니까? ◈◇◈ 청장은 제가 한 달 전까지 모셨던 저희 조직의 책임자인데, 제가 거짓말로 다른 사람에게 돈을 준 것으로 진술하려면 조직 바깥의 사람을 얘기하지, 왜 우리 조직 내의 사람을 얘기하겠 습니까? 제가 일생을 바친 조직이 국세청입니다. ◈◇◈ 청장이 미워서 제가 있지도 않은 일을 조작하여 사랑했던 조직을 망가뜨린다는 것은 상상할 수도 없는 일입니다. " 라고 말한 내용은 충분히 수긍할 수 있는 것으로 판단되고, 따라서 변호인들의 이 부 분 주장 역시 받아들이기 어렵다.

Finally, considering the fact that ○○○○○’s statement that he/she was dilution with the head of the organization’s statement that he/she could be regarded as favorable sentencing data in criminal trials, the following circumstances revealed by the record: ① after ○○○○ was detained by accepting a bribe of KRW 100 million from ○○○○○, he/she was prosecuted due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, he/she stated that the Defendant was given a total of KRW 70 million and USD 10,000 on several occasions in relation to the place of use, the prosecutor tried to prosecute ○○○○ as the offer of a bribe and additionally charged the Defendant with a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In addition, even if ○○○○○ had already been indicted with a bribe offer, the prosecutor did not take any measures to reduce the punishment of ○○○○’s imprisonment with prison labor for a more than 5 years, on the other hand, he/she did not express his/her opinion on the charge.

In the end, unlike the main place in which the defendant's counsel filed, the OO○ appears to have suffered a disadvantage that is subject to criminal punishment by being additionally charged for the offering of a bribe to the defendant, rather than avoiding any substantial benefit to the defendant or any other interested person, by making a statement that he/she provided money to the defendant in relation to the place of use of KRW 100,000,000, which was received from 100,000,000,000,000 won.

(D) Is human beings and statement attitude of OO

1) 기록에 의하면, ① ○○○의 평소 인품에 관하여, 그와 가까이 근무한 ◎◎ ◎ (부산지방청 울산세무서장), ◎ ◎ ◎ (부산지방청 감찰계장), ◎◎◎(부산지방청 총무과 장), ◎◎◎(부산지방청장 부속실 근무), ◎◎◎(국세청 부동산납세관리국장실 근무 )은 검찰에서, 조용하고 인자하며 부하 직원들을 많이 배려해 주는 등 좋은 분이라는 취지 로 진술을 하였고 , 피고인의 비서진인 △△△과 ▽▽▽ 역시 검찰에서, "제가 같이 근 무하지는 않았지만, 평소에 뵈면 과묵하고 일도 열심히 하시고 그랬던 것으로 기억합 니다."(△△△), "정국장님이 본청에 국장으로 오신 후 외관상 보면 꽤 인품이 후덕하시 고 훌륭하신 게 아닌가 생각을 하였습니다. 그리고 사건이 터진 후에도 주변으로부터 꽤 인품이 훌륭하다고 들었습니다."(▽▽▽)라고 진술한 사실, ② ○○○은 ☆☆☆으로 부터 1억 원의 뇌물을 수수한 것으로 구속된 이후 구치소로부터 계호상의 이유 등으로 독거실 수용의 편의를 제공하겠다는 제의를 받고도 이를 사양한 채 다른 일반 수감자 들과 함께 혼거 수용실에서 수감생활을 해 온 사실, ③ 검찰에서 피고인에게 돈을 준 사실에 관하여 진술을 하면서도, 2006. 7. 5. 현금 2,000만 원을 교부한 부분은 밝히지 않은 채 묵비하였다가 , 2007. 11. 1. 피고인과 대질조사를 받는 자리에서 그와 관련된 이야기가 피고인으로부터 은연중에 흘러나와, 이후 검사의 추궁을 받게 되자 , 마지못하 여 위 부분까지 진술을 하게 되는 등, 피고인의 죄책이 너무 커지지 않도록 감싸주려 고 애쓴 면이 보이는 점, ④ 그런데 자신의 뇌물공여 진술에 대하여 피고인이 '정신 나 간 사람'이라고 비난하는 등 감정적 반응을 나타내고, 국세청 조직의 구성원들도 전반 적으로 자신보다는 그 수장인 피고인을 옹호하려는 듯한 태도를 보이자, 못내 서운한 마음을 표시하기도 하였지만, 이러한 정도를 벗어나 피고인을 적극적으로 비난하거나 적대적인 태도를 보이려 하지는 않은 점, ⑤ 에 대해서도 그가 접견 중에 한 이 야기를 검찰에 밝히는 한편으로, 자신의 진술로 인하여 가 어떠한 불이익을 입 게 되지는 않을까 염려하면서 검사에게 선처를 부탁한 사실이 인정된다.

2) In addition, while ○○○ appears in the trial court as a witness and makes a statement at the trial court twice, the prosecutor, as well as the Defendant’s counsel, made a statement in the form of a scambling and scambling the scambling and scambling the scambling of the Defendant’s defense counsel without causing any dynamics to the appraisal. According to the record, such scambling of the statement appears to have been under the same influence in the prosecution and the court of original instance

3) Accordingly, even though ○○○○ received a bribe of KRW 100 million from the operator of the construction company, who was subject to tax investigation by the Busan Regional Office where he was responsible, in response to the solicitation of tax investigation by the △△△△, the operator of the construction company, which was subject to tax investigation by the Busan Regional Office, and in relation to his personnel affairs, he provided a bribe of a considerable amount of money to the Defendant over several occasions in relation to his personnel affairs, and made a solicitation to the public. In addition to the fact that he was transferred to the head of the Busan Regional Office, he received a considerable amount of money from his employees and employees, and received a considerable amount of money from his employees, and 5.1 million U.S. dollars at the office, and the gift certificates of KRW 5.0 million at the highest level of the National Tax Service, such as being kept in the house and discovered a different amount of money. However, in light of the foregoing other various aspects, the statement that the Defendant offered a bribe to the Defendant can be seen as an unlawful person’s identity, reputation, reputation and attitude as a real reputation.

(e) Sub-decisions

In full view of the following: (a) consistency of the statement on the entire background of the fact of offering of a bribe as seen earlier; (b) motive, frequency, date, and place of offering a bribe; (c) cash delivery method; (d) whether the Defendant was in a diction with the Defendant; and (e) rationality and objective reasonableness of the statement on the circumstances during which the Defendant retired while continuing the offering of a bribe even though he did not accept his wishes to do so; (b) motive and interest in the statement; (c) human being and attitude of statement, etc., the statement by ○○○○ is deemed sufficiently reliable.

(5) Summary of Defendant’s statement

On July 18, 2007, the Defendant stated that on October 10, 2007, ○○ was on the day when he was appointed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and on August 24, 2007, ○○○ was on the day when ○○ was enrolled in Seoul in connection with the inspection of the state administration, and that on October 10, 2007, ○○ was on the day when ○○ was enrolled in Seoul.

(6) The credibility of the Defendant’s statement

(A) Order to meet with respect to the place of residence;

◇◇◇가피고인으로부터 OO○울찾아가 면회를 하여 보라는 지시를 받 고, 2007. 8. 22. 검찰에서 ○○○을 접견하여, 피고인으로부터 얼마를 받았는지는 모르 겠지만 ▲▲▲의 사례를 보아서라도 조직의 수장에 대하여 알아서 잘 처신하라는 취 지의 말을 한 후, 피고인에게 접견내용을 보고한 것은 앞에서 본 바와 같은데, 소 의 검찰 진술에 의하면, 그는 ○○○과 접견을 마친 다음 검사에게도 누군가가 ○○○ 으로부터 돈을 받은 사실을 밝히는 것이 국가적으로 무슨 도움이 되겠느냐고 말하였다. 고 한다.

◇◇◇가 OO0에게 말한내용이 피고인의 지시에 의한 것인지 여부와 관 련하여, 피고인은 검찰에서 , 소에게 후임 부산지방청장으로 ○○○을 면회하러 한 번 가 봐야 하는 것 아니냐는 정도로만 말하였고, 그 뒤 소 로부터 ○○○을 접견 하여 ▲▲▲에 관한 이야기를 하였는데 정치권이나 관계기관에 돈을 주었다는 진술은 하지 않을 것 같다는 말을 들었다고 진술하였으며, 원심 법정에서는, 소로부터 이 ○○과 면회를 하였는데 고생하더라는 정도의 이야기를 들은 것 같다고 진술하였다. 그리고 오는 검찰에서, 피고인으로부터 책임지고 가서 만나보라는 말을 들었는데, 다만 피고인에게 돈 준 것을 말하지 못하게 하라는 구체적 이야기를 들은 것 같지는 않다고 진술하였고, 원심 법정에서는, 피고인으로부터 가서 잘 만나 보라고 하는 정도 의 말만 들었고 , 접견을 한 후 피고인에게 ○○○이 힘들어 하지만 잘 있더라는 정도 의 이야기를 해 주었다고 진술하였다.

그러나, ① ◇◇◇가 OO○을 접견한 날은 2007. 8.22.로서,동아일보에 의하여 ○○○이 ☆☆☆으로부터 1억 원의 뇌물을 수수하는 과정에 ▷▷▷가 연루되어 있다는 의혹이 2007. 8. 28. 최초로 보도되어 위 1억 원의 사용처 문제가 사회적 논란 거리로 불거지기 전이었던 점 , ② 가 피고인의 지시에 의하여 ○○○을 접견하 였고, 접견 후에도 피고인에게 접견내용을 보고하였는데, 위 1억 원의 사용처에 대한 언론의 의혹 보도가 터져 나오기도 전의 평온한 상황에서, 피고인으로부터 아무런 언 질도 받지 않은 채 오 임의로 ○○○에게, "피고인에게 얼마를 주었는지는 모르겠 지만 ▲▲▲의 사례를 보아서라도 조직의 수장에 대하여 알아서 잘 처신하라."는 취지 의 말을 하여, 1억 원의 사용처 중 피고인에 관한 부분을 발설하지 말 것을 당부하였 다고는 도저히 믿기 어려운 점, ③ 피고인과 의 각 검찰 및 원심 법정 진술 사 이에 모순되는 부분이 나타나는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 ○○○에게 ○○○을 접견해 보라고 지시하면서 ○○○이 ☆☆☆으로부터 받은 위 1억 원의 사용처와 관련 하여 구체적으로 자신에게 돈을 준 부분을 발설하지 못하게 하라고 말한 것으로 단정 하기는 어렵지만, 적어도 위 1억 원의 사용처를 발설하지 않게 하라는 부탁을 한 것으 로는 인정된다.

As above, the Defendant’s delivery of the above KRW 100 million to the OO○ through the meeting of the parties at issue is very inappropriate measure. In this regard, the Defendant and the defense counsel may bring an action against the Defendant to the effect that the said KRW 100 million goes to the Cheongbu and the personnel in charge of Cheongbu and politics, and that if ○○○○ talks with the said KRW 100 million, the social strike would increase and the National Tax Service’s organization would have an unreasonable impact, but it is difficult to specifically link how to give money to Cheongbu and the personnel in charge of Cheongbu and the National Tax Service’s organization. In light of the above, the Defendant’s behavior cannot reasonably explain the Defendant’s address only with the above changed contents. In short, if ○○○○○ received money from 100 million won, and then ○○○○○○ is difficult to receive money reasonably from the Defendant’s wife.

(B) Request for early closure of an investigation by a prosecutor

According to the records, when the prosecutor conducted the search in parallel with the search and seizure on the OO's home on September 12, 2007 at the office of the Director General of the Real Estate Tax Management Bureau of the National Tax Service, the defendant requested the prosecutor's visit to the effect that the investigation on the 00 million won should be completed early at the place of the prosecutor's visit, and the prosecutor's request that the investigation on the 100 million won should be completed early, and "the 100 million won me was recognized."

In this regard, the defendant stated in the prosecutor's office that, if the investigation of the OO○ had been conducted on the part of the above KRW 100 million, he could have talk about it, but his memory could not be sure, and that ○○○ is too high and the issue of the National Tax Service's acceptance of bribery was discussed, and that he would be able to promptly complete the stability of the organization in the above mind. The court below stated in the court below's law that the statement that 100 million won is the place of use is not clear, and that ○○ is still a burden on the National Tax Service because the investigation on ○○○○ was conducted on a half of the month, and it was a content of the level referred to in the position of the head of agency.

However, the prosecutor's office's search and seizure on September 12, 2007 and the office of the director general of the real estate tax payment management office's office's search and seizure of the ○○○○○'s housing as above, the investigation of the receipt of 100 million won bribe from the ○○○○○○ was completed, and the crime was prosecuted on August 16, 2007 due to violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery). Thus, there was no room to understand that the above search, seizure and search were conducted only by additional investigation. ② As seen earlier on August 22, 2007, the defendant delivered the purport that the above ○○○○'s office did not establish the place of use of the 100 million won above, ③ In light of the fact that the part that does not coincide with the defendant's prosecutor's office and the court's statement at the court, the defendant's investigation of the above ○○'s office is being conducted to a certain extent.

As above, the Defendant’s request for the closure of the prosecutor’s investigation into the place of use of 10 million won at the time of investigation by the prosecutor, as seen earlier, appears to be difficult to reasonably understand if a person who did not receive money from 00 million won before and after the time of receiving the money of KRW 100 million from ○○ around the time of receiving the money of KRW 100 million from ○○○.

(C) The attitude taken from the survey of the substitute; and

According to the records, after the fact that the O0 made a statement that he had delivered brains to the defendant at the prosecutor's office was first reported on October 23, 2007 to the media on the first day, the defendant strongly denied his suspicion against the media, and criticizes the OO as "one's statement made by a mentally weak person who is fluored in the womb" against the OO, and indicating a complaint against the flow of the investigation as "a large scenario is created." However, the defendant was present at the prosecutor's inspection on November 1, 2007 and was investigated for a long time on three occasions, such as the preparation of the suspect's interrogation report made on three occasions, while denying the fact that he received money from the ○○○○○ on one occasion, it is recognized that the defendant paid the money to the ○○○○ at the time of receiving the ○○ and a large tide."

If the defendant was determined to have strongly asserted the confession prior to the summons to the prosecutor's office as above, it would be reasonable to urge ○○, a lower-ranking executive officer, to make a statement with respect to ○○, and to properly disclose the fact that he was frighten, and to be the tree. However, it would be reasonable to say that the defendant had expressed the attitude of demanding the reversal of the statement while seeking a letter of tolerance, even though considering that the defendant did not have expressed one time the desire of OO in the personnel affairs of the two times, it is difficult to formally obtain the oO.

(D) Consideration of the self-denunciation and confession

기록에 의하면, 피고인은 2007. 11. 1. 오전에 현직 국세청장의 신분으로 변호인 2명을 대동하고 검찰에 출석하여, 23:30경까지 ○○○과의 대질조사를 포함해 장시간 조사를 받은 사실, 위 조사 당시 피고인은 자신의 뇌물수수 혐의에 대하여 줄 곧 부인하면서 그 주장을 뒷받침해 줄 수 있는 참고인으로 비서진인 △△△, ⑦⑦⑦, ♡♡♡에 대한 조사를 해 줄 것을 검찰에 요구하였고, 이에 검찰은 △△△, ⑦⑦⑦, ① ♡♡에게 다음날 오전에 출석하여 달라는 내용의 소환통보를 한 사실, 한편 피고인은 위 조사과정에서 검사로부터 자수 및 자백을 하면 처벌이 완화될 수 있고 집행유예까 지도 기대해 볼 수 있다는 취지의 권유를 받고, 변호인들과 상의를 하였는데, 2명의 변 호인 중 BBB 변호사로부터는 자수를 고려해 볼 필요가 있겠다는 조언을 받기도 한 사실, 조사를 모두 마친 후 검사가 다시 자수서 작성을 권유하자, 피고인은 변호인들과 상의하여 그 다음날까지 통보를 하기로 하고 서울로 돌아갔는데, 변호인들은 검찰이 위와 같이 소환통보를 한 △△△, ▽▽▽, ♡♡♡에게 연락하여 다음날 검찰에 출석할 필요가 없다고 알린 사실, 그리고 다음날에 이르러 피고인과 변호인들은 검찰에 자수 및 자백을 하지 않겠다는 통보를 한 사실이 인정된다.

As above, it seems that the defendant's statement was almost unlikely to reverse in the future by making a firm statement with ○○○○ stated in the prosecutor's office and court of the court below that ○○ has made several times of money to the defendant, as stated in the prosecutor's office and court of the court below as to whether the defendant made self-denunciation and confession in accordance with the prosecutor's recommendation regarding the suspect's acceptance of bribe. If the court accepted it as evidence and declares the conviction, it seems that the amount of the bribe would have been severe in terms of the size of the bribery amount.

However, if the defendant is found to have received money from OOO at the end of time, not only his social status and reputation he has been accumulated in the National Tax Service's organization, but also has been extremely serious cases where he has been suffering from her reputation and honor of the entire organization of the National Tax Service. As to the issue that has already been reported by the media and has become an interest in the first place in society, it cannot be said that it is difficult to understand that the first day on which the court was summoned before receiving the judgment of the court, and that the defendant made efforts to assert and prove the innocence immediately and made efforts to make the prosecutor’s summons, and that the defendant made a serious objection while making an inquiry with the defense counsel as to whether to surrender and confession.

(e) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the above various behavior of the Defendant appears to be far away from the response measures that should be taken or can be taken by a person who has not actually received money. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the Defendant’s statement in this respect.

(7) Review of individual grants

(A) The point of cash delivery of KRW 20 million on July 5, 2006

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it can be recognized that the O0 cited shopping bags at night on July 5, 2006 and then divided the Defendant’s house into locked stories, and then the shock whites is replaced by the ○○ and the Defendant’s statement.

However, the OOOO stated that the defendant was sent cash 20 million won to the above shopping bags, while the defendant stated that the defendant was a person who used money, not a money, and that his wife did not confirm what was included at the time, and that he was the same as that he was drinking after being detained in the above case. The defendant's wife stated that 000, which was the defendant's wife, included an alcoholic beverage in the above shopping bags, but was the same as two weeks.

In light of the above, ○○○○○○○○’s statement made by the Prosecutor’s Office on September 16, 2007 and the second statement made on October 5, 2007 without disclosing this part. On November 1, 2007, the following: (a) there is no natural circumstance in which ○○○○○○’s additional statement was made only after receiving the prosecutor’s investigation; (b) the time ○○○○○○○’s statement was designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as the Defendant’s house; (c) it was difficult to acknowledge that ○○○○○○○○○ was one’s house in order to escape the Defendant; and (d) it was difficult to acknowledge that ○○○○○○○○ was one’s own house and made a statement that it was difficult to have the Defendant’s first visit, and (e) it was in conflict with the Defendant’s statement made by the Prosecutor of the National Tax Service, and (e) it was difficult to confirm that ○○○○ was a second person’s statement.

(B) The point of delivery in cash of 10 million won on July 18, 2006

① On July 5, 2006, the OO 200,000 won was reduced when the defendant's office was found to have been designated as the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the 20 million won was paid again on the date when she was on which she was in charge, and 200,000 won was paid again on the date when she was in charge, and 200,000 won was in the prosecutor's office's statement on the date when she was in charge of money, 30,000 won was placed on the date when she was in charge of office or on the preceding day, but 30,000,000 won was put on the date when she was in charge of her statement on November 21, 2007; 3,000,000 won was put in place on the 20,000,000 won, and 1,000,000 won was not in charge of personal affairs among the defendant's office.

However, as seen in the above 0th century, the 1st 0th 0th 2th 2th 2th 2th 6th 6th 2th 6th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2th 200 2th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 2th 2000 2th 2th 1st 1st 3th 3th 2nd 1st 3th 2nd 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 1st 200 2nd 1st 206th 2nd 3th 200 2nd 2nd 3th 3th 200.

(C) The point of delivery in cash of 10 million won on August 24, 2006

기록에 의하면, OO○은부산지방청에 2006. 8. 24.부터 다음날까지 2일의 기간으로 출장신청서를 작성 · 제출하고 서울에 올라가 , 2006. 8. 24. 국세청 본청에서 " 따뜻한 세정 실천을 위한 세무관서장 결의대회"라는 이름으로 개최된 전국 세무관서 장회의의에 참석한 후, 다음날(금요일) 부산지방청으로 돌아가지 않고 그대로 서울에 머물러 있다가, 그 다음날인 2006. 8. 26. 20:30경 서울 종로구 통의동에 있는 음식점 에서 ☆☆☆, ▷▷▷를 만나 함께 식사를 한 뒤, 위 음식점 앞에서 ☆☆☆으로부터 현 금 1억 원이 든 가방을 받은 사실이 인정된다 .

On August 24, 2006, the above facts of recognition, which the OO○ did not get back to Busan and remains in Seoul, after attending the meeting of the head office of the former state office held by the National Tax Service on August 24, 2006, which was held at the main office of the National Tax Service. The receipt of KRW 100 million from August 26, 2006, which was after this framework, is particularly a very special part of the part that received a large amount of KRW 100 million from the △△△△△, which was received as a bribe. However, on September 16, 2007, at the time when the first statement was made by the public prosecutor on September 16, 2007, the date of giving KRW 10 million to the defendant on August 24, 2006 and that it was made before receiving KRW 100,000 from the △△△△△△, it is difficult to understand that it was made a statement to the defendant.

However, as seen in the foregoing, even if the O0 paid money to the Defendant at the office of the National Tax Service, it appears that it would not be easy to separate and separate the Defendant from July 18, 2006 to November 3, 2006. The time when the ○○○ makes the first statement on September 16, 2007 was the same, and it was one year or more, even if the ○○○○ received KRW 100 million from the △△△△△△, it seems that the Defendant paid money on several occasions, as seen above, it appears that the ○○○○○○ received money from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s head office on August 24, 2006, which did not seem to have been specific as to whether the Defendant received money from the ○○○○○○○’s head office on several occasions, such as the specific date of memory and the details of the exercise thereof, and whether the Defendant received money from the ○○○○○○.

(D) The point of delivery in cash of 20 million won on October 10, 2006

1) 원심이 적법하게 채택 · 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 국회의 국정감사가 2006. 10. 16. 국세청 본청에서 국세청을 대상으로, 2006. 10. 19.부터 2일간 광주지방 청에서 각 지방청을 대상으로 이루어진 사실 , ○○○은 그에 앞서 2006. 10. 10. 부산 지방청에 출장신청서를 제출하지 않은 채 열차(KTX)편으로 서울에 올라가, 오후에 국 회에 들러 국회 재경위원회 수석전문위원으로서 자신과는 서울대학교 행정대학원 동기 인 ■■■를 만나고, 다음날 아침에 부산으로 내려간 사실이 인정된다.

2 ) ○○○이 2006. 10. 10. 서울에 올라갔을 때 , 국회로 가기 전에 국세청 본 청에 들러 국세청장 집무실에서 피고인을 잠시 만나고 2,000만 원을 주었다는 진술의 신빙성에 관하여 살피건대, ① 국정감사를 받게 되면 피고인이 국세청장으로서 이를 준비하기 위하여 돈 쓸 일이 많기 때문에 평소보다 많은 2,000만 원을 주었다고 한 진 술이 매우 구체적인 점, ② 현금 2,000만 원을 서류봉투에 넣기는 부적절하여 고무줄 이 달린 플라스틱 사각 파일박스에 넣어 보았더니 잘 들어가서 위 파일박스에 돈을 넣 어 가지고 가서 주었다고 한 진술은, 앞에서 본 바와 같이, 직접 체험해 보지 않고서는 밝히기 어려운 것인 점, ③ ○○○이 부산지방청의 국정감사 준비와 관련하여 서울에 올라가 국회에 들렀다고 하나, 부산지방청장의 신분으로 직접 만나 인사를 하고 미리 협조를 구하여야 할 필요가 있는 국정감사기관의 사람은, 국회의 담당 상임위원회인 재경위원회 소속 의원들이라 할 것인데, 그날 이들 국회의원 중에서 만난 사람이 있었 다고 볼 만한 자료는 없고, 자신과의 친분상 굳이 평일에 부산지방청을 비워 두고 서 울에까지 찾아갈 필요 없이 전화 통화를 하거나 주말에 서울의 집으로 올라갈 때 만나 도 무방할 것으로 여겨지는 수석전문위원인 ■■■를 만난 사실만 인정될 뿐이어서 , ○○○이 2007. 11. 21. 검찰에서 진술한 바와 같이, 피고인에게 국정감사 경비에 보태 어 쓰라는 명목으로 돈을 주는 것이 그날 상경의 주된 목적이었고 국회에 찾아가는 것 은 부차적인 일이었거나, 아니면 당심 법정에서 진술한 바와 같이 위 두 가지 목적을 위하여 겸사겸사해서 부산지방청에는 출장신청서를 제출하지 않은 채 서울에 올라간 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, ○○○의 위 진술은 충분히 신빙할 수 있는 것으로 판단된다.

3) In the prosecutor's office, the court below, and the trial court's law, ○○○ stated that the main office of the National Tax Service, including a taxi in front of the Seoul Station, was divided into several stories during a short time in the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, Defendant B's only a few stories during a short time, and the other people immediately left the main office and went back to the National Assembly without complying with the other people, and then, the ○○ called the dedicated dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the 2 p.m., having arrived at the National Tax Service, and the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated

As a whole, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, including the result of the on-site verification of this case, ① as ○○○ was originally scheduled and scheduled due to weather conditions, it was possible to use the above flight to use the KTX train to arrive at the main office of the National Tax Service at 10 A.M. and to arrive at the Seoul Station at 12:45 p.m. using the train, ② within 20 minutes from the Seoul taxi platform to the front office of the National Assembly, up to 30 minutes before the National Assembly building before the main office of the National Tax Service; ③ as 14:16 p.m., 14:6 p. mobile phone calls to the National Tax Service, and 4:4:0 p.m. mobile phone calls to the public official of the National Tax Service; and ④ as 4:4:00 p.m. mobile phone calls to the public official of the Republic of Korea National Tax Service; and (4) more than 3:00 p.m. mobile phone calls to the public office of Yeongdeungpo located within the Seoul Metropolitan City.

Therefore, it is deemed that the OO moved to Seoul Station around 12:45 on that day, and the head office of the National Tax Service via a taxi, and paid money to the defendant returned to the National Tax Service at the office of the National Tax Service before 14:00 on that day before 13:29, and again going to the National Assembly using a taxi at around 14:16 on that day, it seems that the defendant was sent to the area where the signal of the base country is concentrated on the signal of the Don-do National Assembly (it seems that the Don-do National Assembly should go to the Don-nam or Han River bridge). In particular, it seems that the defendant was sent to the National Tax Service and the National Assembly going to go to the transit area of the base country, and it seems that the whole time is not impossible to do so.

However, it appears that it is difficult for an OOOO to specifically confirm the behavior between the defendant and the defendant at the National Tax Service, because it is about one year prior to arrival of the defendant. However, the above part is about very secondary and viral matters among those days before approximately one year, and it seems that OOOO's failure to properly memory it is inevitable for OOOO to be in accordance with the limit of memory.

그리고 OO○이 국세청에서©©○를만나지 않고 국회로 가는 도중에 전 화만 하였다고 하는 점에서 , ◎◎◎와 이야기할 사항이 있었으면 본청에 들렀을 때 잠 깐 만날 수도 있었을 텐데 그러지 않았다는 것이 다소 의문스러울 수도 있다. 그러나 이 점과 관련하여 ○○○은 당심 법정에서, 그 당시 국회로 가는 것이 촉박하여 ◎◎ ◎의 사무실로 찾아가 직접 만나볼 여유가 없었다고 진술하였는데, 앞에서 본 바와 같 이 피고인을 만나서도 잠깐 몇 마디 이야기만 나누고 곧바로 나왔다고 하였고, 기록에 의하면, 국세청장 집무실은 당시 14층에 있었고 , 감사관실은 그와 층을 달리하여 12층 에 있었던 것으로 인정되는 점에 비추어 보면, 위와 같은 ○○○의 진술내용은 수긍할 수 있는 것으로 보인다.

4) As to whether ○○○○ had made a part-time undertaking through an annexed room in advance to meet the Defendant’s day, ○○○ stated in the lower court’s trial that the previous official phone called to the secretary of the National Tax Service in advance and made a part-time undertaking to the secretary of the National Tax Service on the same day. On the same day, ○○ stated that the traffic signal going to Seoul was changed from aviation to train flights and sought a train tag according to the above commitment hours. However, in the first instance court, it was the same as having contacted the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in advance to the annexed room, but it was possible to talk with the annexed room on the same day.

이와 관련하여△△△은 원심 법정에서, OOO이그날 국세청장집무실로 찾아오거나 사전에 면담약속을 한 일이 없다고 진술하였고, ♡♡♡도 검찰에서, 위 날 에는 ○○○이 찾아오지 않은 것으로 기억된다고 진술하였다.

However, it is reasonable to view that the above statements made by △△△△ and Virtual△△ is difficult to believe on the grounds as seen earlier, and that ○○○, as stated in the lower court’s court decision, had contact with the office affiliated with the head of the national tax office prior to going into Seoul, and had the head of the national tax office make a prior promise, and used a train tag accordingly.

5) Meanwhile, according to the record, the National Tax Service’s office building installed one surveillance camera for closed-circuit telecom (CCTV) at the top and right top of the office building. When the office building was closed, the office building for the right-hand surveillance telecom (hereinafter “the office building”) gets off the entrance of an underground pension store located on the right-hand side, and then sees the front of the office building called the left-hand monitoring telecom, and restores the images taken by the above monitoring telecom during the pertinent time period during which ○○ entered the office building. However, it is recognized that the ○○○’s form was not confirmed.

However, comprehensively taking account of the results of the on-site inspection of this court, and evidence examined by the court below and the first instance court. ① The front space of the office building was opened without fences to the front end of the office building; ② there are three methods using the passage to the right end of the office building; ② The right side passage of the office building is leading to the front door of the office building; ③ the front door of the office building to the right side of the office building by the Jongno-gu Office of National Tax Service which is located on the right side of the office building; ③ the front door of the office building and the front door of the office building are closed to the right side of the office building; ③ the front door of the office building and the front door of the office building are opened to the right side of the office building by the National Tax Service; ④ The front door of the office building and the front door of the office building are opened to the right side of the office building and the front door of the office building are not opened to the right side of the office building.

According to the above facts, when using a taxi on October 10, 2006 and entering the office of the National Tax Service, it appears that it is highly likely that OOOOOO will leave the office near Jongno-gu Office or the branch of the National Bank in the right side of the office building, and go to the right side. While leaving the office of the office, it seems that there is a possibility that OOOO will go to the front or near the office of the National Bank by using the above right side passage while leaving the office of the office, or going to the left side by leaving the office of the office of the National Bank or going to the left side of the office of the office, and in this case, it appears that it was difficult to capture OOOOO's appearance into the monitoring camera of each office of the office building. In addition, in the case of surveillance car in front of the office building, it is difficult to clearly distinguish the passage of the person who entered the office building or the face of the person who entered the office.

Therefore, the fact that the appearance of ○O is not confirmed in the image taken by the surveillance camera of the National Tax Service's office, does not interfere with recognizing that the OO was found in the main office of the National Tax Service at the time of the OO.

(E) The point of delivery in cash of 10 million won on November 3, 2006

Before a national tax official’s annual conference is held at the National Tax Service’s National Tax Service Education Center on November 3, 2006, each local head of the National Tax Service including ○○○ in the main office of the National Tax Service reported his/her business to the victims individually on the same day, as seen earlier. However, there seems to be no particular problem that ○○○’s statement stand for the Defendant to recognize that the Defendant gave KRW 10 million to the above opportunity.

(F) The point of delivery of US$10,000 on January 3, 2007

As seen earlier, the Defendant sent overseas business trips from January 5, 2007 to the United States and Canada. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, ① ○○○ was transferred to the Director of the Real Estate Tax Payment Management Bureau at the headquarters of the National Tax Service on December 28, 2006, and submitted to the Defendant at the office of the National Tax Service on January 3, 2007, along with the title “the direction of real estate tax administration for 2007” at the office of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the office of the National Tax Service, along with the title “○○○” (the head of the real estate transaction department), and made a report on the title “the direction of real estate tax administration for 2007” at the prosecutor’s office and the court of the lower court. ② ○○○, after completing the report as above, was placed in an envelope of USD 10,000,000 for travel expenses from the overseas business trip, and in this case, the fact that the Defendant stated “○○○’s office did not present.”

In full view of the following facts: (a) the statement on the offering of O00’s offer of this part was consistently consistent from the time of the first statement made by the prosecution on September 16, 2007; (b) the statement that the Defendant received USD 10,00 from the prosecution and made the said 10,00 as an agricultural fence was difficult to make a false statement if he did not directly listen to it; and (c) the said statement was examined as to the source of the said money; and (d) it was recognized that the Defendant delivered USD 10,00 to the Defendant as above as ○○○’s statement; and (e) the statement made by △△ does not interfere with it.

(8) Sub-decisions

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, including the OO○’s statement, the Defendant, as stated in its holding, can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant received 70 million U.S. dollars and 10,000 U.S. dollars in cash from ○○○ through six times in relation to personnel affairs, and received them as a bribe.

C. The reasoning of the judgment below

In full view of all the decisions so far, the court below committed an unlawful act as a material for fact-finding even though some of the evidence presented by the prosecutor could not be admitted as evidence as seen above. However, even if the evidence was adopted and investigated as evidence for fact-finding, the court below's decision is just in its conclusion and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Maternity Only (Presiding Judge)

Lee Young-young

Type 1