조세범처벌법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the instant facts charged, there was no call or request to E for the issuance of a false tax invoice as stated in the instant facts charged, and the statement made by an investigative agency was made in a state of mental and physical weakness because it was not properly locked due to work.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable, which is deemed unfair. (2) The sentence that was sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges based on the Defendant’s legal statement, etc.
2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office on March 7, 2017 that “C purchase data is insufficient to the extent of KRW 300 million.”
The tax invoice was cut down.
However, it introduced E, which was known to the general public, in the state of the purchase and sales data at the time, to C, which was operated by J in Jeju-do.
“The Defendant, on November 28, 2016, made a false statement, and in conformity with the police’s statement on November 28, 2016, was physically and mentally weak at the time when the Defendant was investigated by the investigative agency.
In addition, C requested the defendant who was aware of the fact that there is a lack of the balance sheet of tax purchase at the investigation agency (2012....) The defendant knew of E to the ordinary customer, and submitted it to the port tax office on March 2013, after receiving a false tax invoice of KRW 300 million from the person so notified.
“The Defendant is aware of the fact by phone with E and memory that he was issued a tax invoice.”
In light of the fact that the Defendant made a statement and supported the Defendant’s above statement, the lower court’s judgment is erroneous.