조세범처벌법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as stated in paragraph (2) of the misunderstanding of facts, there was no fact that the Defendant requested the second sale tax invoice of the “G company” upon request of the representative of the I company and sent it.
B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 4 million imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, Article 20 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter the same) provides that “No provision on aggravation of restriction on concurrence of fines among Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall apply to a person who commits an offense referred to in Article 10 shall apply to the person who commits an offense referred to in Article 10.” The meaning of the language is interpreted to the effect that “in punishing the person who commits an offense of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the same time as a fine for each offense of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for which judgment has not become final and conclusive” under the main sentence of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act is not applicable.
Therefore, when a fine is imposed concurrently on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the fine should be imposed separately for each crime and the amount of the fine should be imposed.
(2) Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act applies to each of the above crimes of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act by the evidence of the judgment below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do952, May 21, 1996). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 20 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in light of the above legal principles.
In this respect, it is necessary to do so.