특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of forty-five thousand won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Regarding the sum of supply values, etc., misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was issued an invoice, other than the electronic tax invoice, in the case of Nos. 1 through 4 of the List of Crimes attached to the lower judgment, and was issued a net tax invoice in the case of 5 or 10.
B) In the case of Nos. 1 through 4 above, since false purchase is submitted on the list of total tax invoices by seller without submitting the tax invoices by seller, only the crime under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established, and in the case of Nos. 5 through 10 above, since the submission of the list of total tax invoices is exempted and only the crime under Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established.
C) Therefore, the sum of the supply values, etc. of the Defendant is KRW 2.488,472 million and does not amount to at least three billion. Therefore, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not established.
2) As to the period of detention in a workhouse, the lower court decided that the Defendant is detained in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting a fine of KRW 50 million into one day when the Defendant did not pay the above fine. This is unlawful since Article 2(1) of the Addenda of the Criminal Act (Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) decided to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court is applied.
B. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 500 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the total amount of supply value, etc.
A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court of the facts of recognition:
1) On November 30, 2009, the Defendant, for profit, did not receive an official space from the system business office located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of generating profits, the supply price of the case is 400 million won from the artificial shock day (hereinafter referred to as the “personal shock day”) although the external share price was not supplied at the system business office.