조세범처벌법위반등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, and a fine of one billion won.
3. The defendant is above.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Unlike facts, misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1), the Defendant did not participate in the operation of Company I (hereinafter “I”), receipt of tax invoices, report on value added tax, etc., and did not know that the Defendant did not know.
Therefore, the defendant was involved in the crime of tax evasion and submission of a list of total tax invoices by false purchasers related to I.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
2) The Defendant was involved in all the act of issuing and receiving tax invoices.
Even if the same tax invoice is to be issued and received, it is unfair and double calculation to determine whether the crime is established and whether the total amount of each supply of the total tax invoice of the seller and the total amount of each supply of the total amount of tax invoice of each purchaser constitutes an unfair and double calculation.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, one billion won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the allegation of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant alleged that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, on this point, may recognize the fact that the Defendant conspired with C, etc. to submit a sum table of the accounts of the I's purchase price accounts and to commit the purchase deduction crime committed using it, in collusion with C, etc., by giving detailed explanation of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning from the six to eight pages of the lower judgment.
The decision was determined.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances cited as the basis for its determination closely, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
2) The second argument is based on Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 8-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for the purpose of profit-making.