Main Issues

The amendment of Acts and extraordinary appeal;

Summary of Judgment

The court below acknowledged that the defendant did not pay the amount equivalent to 94,916 won at the time when the decision was rendered on March 29, 4290, without justifiable reasons, and recognized that the defendant did not pay the amount equivalent to 94,916 won at least three times in the previous and previous four occasions, and applied Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and selected imprisonment among the prescribed penalty, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year for three months in the term of imprisonment, but the Act was amended as of December 31, 4289 as a result of the revision of the Act as of December 31, 4289, it was improper that the execution of the sentence was suspended for one year in March, 29, notwithstanding that the defendant could not choose imprisonment at the time when the decision was rendered on March 29, 4290. Therefore, the court below'

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 441 and 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

upper and high-ranking persons

(2) The Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court

Judgment of the lower court

The first instance court, the second instance court, the Gwangju High Court.

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

Reasons

Since the defendants, who were engaged in agriculture in their residence, were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the first and fourth years under Article 62 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the first and fourth years under Article 62 of the same Act were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second and fourth years under Article 9 of the same Act, and the second and fourth years under Article 9 of the same Act were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second and fourth years under Article 9 of the same Act, and the second and fourth years were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second and fourth years under Article 9 of the same Act, and the second and fourth years were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second years under Article 9 of the same Act, and the second and fourth years were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second and fourth years under Article 9 of the same Act, and the second and fourth years were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second years under Article 10 of the same Act, and thus the court below's decision that the second and fourth years were not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the second and fourth years was not sentenced to imprisonment for the second years.