조세범처벌법위반
The judgment below
Part of acquittal shall be reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
Defendant
A and B above.
1. Where there exist several orders for the judgment, such as partial conviction, partial acquittal, etc., on a case prosecuted concurrently for concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, the part included in the one part may be separately appealed from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive, and where only the prosecutor appealed on the part not guilty, as to the part of concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the first instance which pronounced not guilty or partially guilty, which became final and conclusive by the defendant and the prosecutor not appealed to the appellate court, the part of the judgment of innocence which became final and conclusive by the time limit for appeal against the part of the judgment of acquittal, and accordingly, the part of the judgment of
(2) According to the records, the court below found the Defendants guilty of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the issuance of false tax invoices related to the sale of medical devices to the I Hospital among the charges against the Defendants. The court below appealed on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the issuance of false tax invoices related to the sale of medical devices, and found the Defendants guilty portion of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the issuance and receipt of false tax invoices related to the MIM sales to the MI hospital for which only the prosecutor was acquitted. Thus, the court’s judgment is limited to the portion of the acquittal
2. According to the prosecutor's summary of the grounds for appeal, according to the medical equipment agreement (i.e., a self-shotgrapher (i.e., a single-shotgrapher; hereinafter referred to as "MRI"), the background report of the Z staff of M Hospital (i.e., an investigation record) and the statement of the operator's R (i., an investigation record) of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "L"), the instant MRI directly sold L to MI, and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Co., Ltd.") purchased from L to MI, and did not sell it again to the MI, and the Defendants did not sell it again to the MI without real transactions.