조세범처벌법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 13,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the penalty amounting to KRW 17 million) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not apply to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the same Act, with respect to the restriction on concurrent fines under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act.
The meaning of the phrase “assumptive” is interpreted to the effect that the same provision does not apply to the punishment of a fine for a number of offenses on which judgment has not become final and conclusive at the same time, “an aggravated punishment by aggravating the maximum amount of fine for the most severe crime within the limit of 1/2 of the maximum amount of fine specified for the most severe crime” under the text of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, in cases where a fine is imposed at the same time on each crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to each of the above offenses, the fine shall be separately imposed for each of the offenses and the amount of fine shall be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do11938, Dec. 26, 2013; 94Do952, May 31, 1996). In such a case, the lower court imposed a fine of KRW 17 million on each of the offenses of this case, while applying Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to each of the offenses of this case, while imposing a fine separately for each of the offenses of this case, without further proceeding to calculate and add the fines, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above, and the court below ruled the case again after pleading as follows. Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as to this case.