Defendant

A corporation B shall be punished by a fine of 6,000.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio decision (the part on Defendant B) is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the above Defendant.

Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act applies to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Since Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act excludes the application of aggravated provisions on restriction on concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, where a fine is imposed for a crime of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a fine shall be imposed separately for each offense and sentenced to a fine in an amount equivalent to the sum of fines (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3131, Jul. 23, 2009). In such a case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the judgment of the court below, since Article 18 and Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, while imposing a fine for each offense under Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the part of the judgment below concerning concurrent crimes under Article 200.

B. As to Defendant A’s assertion, the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and in addition, in light of the ex post facto core character of the appellate court, there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing is at the discretion.