beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.06.20 2013노279

조세범처벌법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant registered a business under the trade name called E in order to cultivate work on the real property, the Defendant merely lent the above name to D because he did not have any interest in the above solid business, and did not commit the crime identical to the facts charged in the instant case, even though he knew from the beginning that D was to use it for tax evasion, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the premise that the Defendant conspired with D from the beginning that he committed the instant crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The eight-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court: (i) although the defendant asserted that he had registered his business in his name in order to transfer the solid business, it is difficult for him to fully delegate the passbook and seal in his name to D and do not participate in the solid business; (ii) the defendant, at the time of investigation into the crime of this case in Daejeon Tax Office, actually operates E; and (iii) the defendant, at the time of the investigation into the crime of this case in Daejeon Tax Office, stated that he was a real transaction with C, and the investigative agency, even though he knew that D was fully operated, it was stated that he had lent his name and affixed the passbook and seal to D while it was consistent with the defendant's business registration to assist him, but it was stated that D was in charge of the actual business during the process of assisting him, and thus, it is not consistent with the defendant and the defendant in the judgment of the court.