특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, in the course of conducting a general tax investigation on Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”)’s business establishment, a tax official found an article that contains double account books of Defendant B (hereinafter “B”), i.e., a high risk of concealment, destruction, or forgery if he/she found such article and did not immediately seize it, the relevant tax official only copied electronic information in the above USB (hereinafter “instant electronic information”) with the consent of Defendant A and AAA holder, and returned it. In light of the fact that the tax official did not deliver a written consent for temporary storage and a temporary storage certificate to the relevant tax official, the admissibility of the evidence is recognized, such as the above electronic information contained in the said USB and the written accusation acquired therefrom.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground of admissibility of evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the
Judgment
The lower court, first of all, found the following facts, namely, ① the Daegu Regional Tax Service conducted a tracking investigation on the distribution process of alcoholic beverages for the period from January 1, 2013 to July 15, 2016 on the basis that the investigation period for the investigation on the Defendant B and R was three years from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015; ② the WT, X, Z, etc., which is an employee of the Daegu Regional Tax Service, conducted a tracking investigation on R at the Ro Office on May 27, 2016. On the same day, other tax officials were also engaged in a tracking investigation on the Defendant B’s office; ③ AA, who is the Defendant’s accounting official, had been on the Ro’s new accounting official, was on the Ro’s computer book, and was on the Ro’s book on May 27, 2016.
Defendant B. in the prone of AA.