Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 20,000,000 won.

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Defendant A had the intent and ability to take over and promote a new apartment house construction project (hereinafter “instant project”) in Yongsan-si at the time when Defendant A borrowed KRW 250,000,000 from the victim G, and the Defendant did not deceiving G.

2) Defendant B actually supplied O products to N Co., Ltd. on the part of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and there was no fact that he issued the electronic tax invoice without supplying the goods.

B. The punishment of the judgment below which is unfair in sentencing (Defendant A: 3 years of imprisonment, and fine of 20 million won in case of Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment ex officio on Defendant B

A. As to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act does not apply with respect to restriction on concurrent crimes (Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act). In a case where a fine is imposed at the same time with respect to a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, a fine shall be imposed separately for each offense and sentenced to a fine in an amount calculated by adding up the fines (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11938 Decided December 26, 2013). (b) In light of the above legal principles, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the lower court ex officio examined the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant Company, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on each of the crimes under Article 38(1)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, while imposing a fine pursuant to Articles 18 and 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on each of the crimes under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

However, as above.