The part of the judgment No. 1 is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of KRW 1.5 billion.

A. The lower court’s judgment omitted the fact that the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine despite the concurrent relationship between the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on October 25, 2012.

B. In light of the circumstances on the defendant's unfair sentencing, each sentence imposed by the court below (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for a year, a fine of 1.5 billion won, and a fine of 2.3 billion won: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the term “a crime for which a judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” shall be deemed concurrent crimes. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that when there is a crime not adjudicated among concurrent crimes, a sentence shall be imposed for such crime in consideration of equity with the case where the said crime and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrently adjudicated

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of each of the above provisions, if a crime for which no judgment has yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equality, or that the punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 201). Meanwhile, both the date and time of the crime of the Defendant’s crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the Defendant, the date and time of the crime of the crime of the crime of the Defendant (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance”) have become final and conclusive, and the date and time of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the Defendant of the first instance is prior to the judgment of the Defendant not guilty (hereinafter “the judgment of the second instance”), while the date and time of the crime of the crime of the crime of the nonguilty was subsequent to the final and conclusive judgment of the first instance, the crime of the crime of the crime of the nonguilty and the crime