조세범처벌법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 5.6 million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) imposed by the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable.
2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor
Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "The provisions on restricted aggravation with respect to concurrent fines in Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act."
The meaning of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the case where a single sentence is imposed by adding up to one half of the maximum amount of fine prescribed for a serious crime when a person is punished by a fine at the same time for a number of offenses for which judgment has not become final and conclusive.
Therefore, in the case of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the same time, the fine shall be separately determined for each crime and the amount of the fine shall be imposed.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do952, May 31, 1996; 2013Do1235, Apr. 11, 2013). The lower court imposed a fine at the same time for each crime of violation of Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018); while imposing a fine at the same time for each crime of violation of Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it did not impose a fine separately for each of the crimes under Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, nor imposed a fine of five million won for each crime subject to aggravated punishment under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.
In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.
3. The court below's decision is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and it is so decided as follows.
Re-use.