A. The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles acknowledged that the defendant registered a business operator in the name of L and operated M. However, although the defendant did not have the purpose of evading tax or evading compulsory execution, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the defendant stated in the prosecutor's office that "the defendant was aware that it is difficult for the tax office to impose taxes on a third party and it is difficult to enforce compulsory execution in the event that a third party's business is in arrears," and that the defendant registered a business operator in the name of a third party and operated M with the purpose of evading tax or evading compulsory execution, since the prosecutor's office fully recognizes the fact that "the defendant had operated a business operator under the name of a third party because he did not pay taxes and did not pay taxes." < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20347, Dec. 2, 2007>

B. It is recognized that the instant crime of this case with regard to determining the illegality of sentencing is subject to the principle of equity with the case where a judgment is rendered concurrently in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to the concurrent crimes between the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, etc. for which the judgment has become final and conclusive

However, the nature of the crime of this case is not very good, and the amount of tax evaded is reasonable.