Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and three months and fine of two billion won.

A. The lower court convicted Defendant B (Defendant B) of the charge of evading M’s additional value-added tax during the second period of 2008 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the statute of limitations has expired.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment and fine of KRW 2.8 billion) that declared unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the court below against the prosecutor (the suspended sentence of Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months and fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B) 1 of relevant legal principles is a legal person under Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) and a legal person under Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as a person without tax payment under Article 2 subparag. 9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and a representative of a corporation or an individual, an agent, employee, and other employees. A person who does not have such status can be co-offenders in the tax without tax payment, and cannot be the subject of tax evasion independently, and even in the case of a person without tax payment in collusion with several persons, the subject of tax evasion is only the subject of tax evasion, and thus, the number of crimes is established for each person without tax payment, and it does not constitute one crime.

Therefore, in the application of Article 8 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"), where the annual amount of evaded tax reaches or exceeds a certain amount of tax, the issue of whether to be subject to the application of Article 8 shall be determined by dividing the annual amount of evaded tax by the person without tax payment, and the application of each tax amount of evaded tax shall not be determined by adding up all the amount of evaded tax (Supreme Court Decision 97Do2429, May 8, 1998, etc.).