특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant A of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion of acquittal) for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.
There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing
Defendant
In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant C of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion of acquittal) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
In doing so, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.
3. As to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 5, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (i) Defendant A and Co-defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant A, etc.”) are not Co-Defendant A, and the actual operator of AK is not AE, but A and BA; and Defendant D, an employee of the Z Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Z”) knew that the other party to the transaction of the Z is Defendant A, etc., he was issued a purchase tax invoice in the name of E and AE for the said scrap metal transaction; and Defendant D was issued a tax invoice in the name of E and AE for the said scrap metal transaction.