특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)등
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A’s judgment Nos. 1, 1.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ assertion (1) and misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of the court below on the first instance is that the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) received USD 11,186,716 (hereinafter “foreign currency of this case”) rather than USD 11,186,716 (hereinafter “the foreign currency of this case”) and the fee to be sent to the K in the United States located in two Ba (hereinafter “U.S.K”) was stored. Accordingly, the foreign currency of this case was not the sales of the Defendant Company, and the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not evade value added taxes because it was not aware that the value-added tax is applied to the value-added tax, and there was no intention to evade value-added taxes.
In addition, since the foreign currency of this case is not the revenue of the defendant company, the transfer of USD 9,812,957 among them to the United States K cannot be deemed as an act of evading corporate tax.
Nevertheless, the first instance court convicted the Defendants of all the charges of tax evasion by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
(2) Each sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the Defendants (a two years of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 4 billion against the Defendant, and a fine of KRW 4 billion against the Defendant Company) are too unreasonable.
B. Defendant A’s assertion (1) of the judgment of the court below of the second instance is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles or the foreign currency of this case, which is not the revenue of the Defendant Company, and thus, Defendant remitted USD 9,812,957 to K does not constitute embezzlement or escape abroad of the Defendant Company’s property, nor does it disguise the fact regarding the acquisition of criminal proceeds.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
In addition, the defendant filed a complaint against M with embezzlement and theft, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AC apartment 503 Dong 402 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").