조세범처벌법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 18,000,000.
Defendant
A The above fine shall be imposed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (the fine of KRW 30,000,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 20 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter “former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act”) provides that “any person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not be subject to heavy restriction on the concurrence of fines under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act,” prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the ex officio, where a fine is imposed concurrently on several crimes for which judgment has not become final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do952, May 31, 1996); where any act under each subparagraph of Article 10(3) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is committed without supplying goods or services, or where a tax invoice or invoice is received, or where a list of total sales, total tax invoices, or individual suppliers is submitted, each of the documents submitted.
(1) In the case where a public prosecution was instituted against a violation of Article 10(3)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 18 and Article 10(3)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the lower court imposed a fine of KRW 30,000,00 on each of the crimes following the aggravation of concurrent crimes under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act. However, in this case, the lower court imposed a fine of KRW 30,000 on each of the crimes, while imposing a fine for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on each of the crimes committed by the Defendant Company B, while imposing a fine for negligence on each of the crimes committed by each of the crimes committed by the respective crimes, and did not add up the fine for each of the crimes committed by the respective crimes.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 20 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.