특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)등
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the remaining Defendants, excluding the dismissal of prosecution, shall be reversed.
Defendant
A.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the Defendants (the 5-year suspended sentence and the 1.8 billion won fine in the 3-year imprisonment of Defendant A, the 300 million won fine in Defendant C, and the 100 million won fine in Defendant D Co., Ltd.) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.
The meaning of the language and text of Article 4(1) main sentence of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 4(2) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter the same) that “the restriction on the concurrence of fines under Article 9 and 11-2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not apply to a person who commits an offense under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.” It is interpreted to the effect that “the method of imposing a single punishment by increasing the limit of one half of the total amount of fines specified in the relevant serious crime” under the main sentence of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal
Therefore, in cases where a fine is imposed on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) due to each of the above offenses, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the same
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do952 Decided May 31, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1235 Decided April 11, 2013, etc.). However, the first instance court did not apply Article 11-2 and (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to Defendant A, who was prosecuted for committing an offense, but specifically commits each offense while Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the restriction on aggravation of fines.