조세범처벌법위반등
All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. Defendant 1) The facts charged in the instant case are identical to the facts charged in the instant case, including the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) that became final and conclusive on November 16, 2018.
Therefore, since the above final judgment is not effective in the facts charged in this case, the judgment of acquittal should be sentenced to the facts charged in this case.
B) Although the prosecutor could prosecute the instant case together with the instant case, such as a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.), he arbitrarily prosecuted the instant case and abused the right to prosecute. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made based on whether the facts charged or facts constituting the offense are identical in the criminal proceedings regarding the Defendant’s assertion of acquittal. It cannot be understood only from the perspective of the identity of pure facts, and the basic facts should be determined based on whether the Defendant’s act and other normative factors are substantially identical in addition to the Defendant’s natural and social facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9678, Mar. 23, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant provided the following evidence from the Daegu District Court on Sept. 14, 2018; “The Defendant assisted the use of entertainment information site from Aug. 17, 2016 to Mar. 22, 2018; and the Defendant acquired the password of the means of access from the Defendant’s name and personal account from the Defendant.