부동산등기특별조치법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.
Defendant
A does not pay the above fine.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for occupational embezzlement at the Seoul Western District Court on January 30, 2018, and the above judgment was finalized on February 7, 2018. On October 24, 2019, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced one year of a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Seoul Western District Court’s imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and confirmed the above judgment on November 1, 2019. As such, each of the above crimes and each of the instant crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a sentence may no longer be maintained, taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
B. On October 24, 2019, Defendant Company B was sentenced to a fine of KRW 10 million for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Seoul Western District Court on October 24, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 1, 2019. The criminal facts of the above final judgment are that Defendant A, the representative of the Defendant Company, committed an act of receiving purchase tax invoices or refusing to issue sales tax invoices in relation to the Defendant Company’s business, even if the Defendant Company supplied three commercial loans from Company E, and supplied the commercial buildings to H and G, Defendant A, the representative of the Defendant Company, was involved in the Defendant Company’s business. In view of the facts closely related to the instant criminal facts
Defendant
The company's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. If so, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without stating unfair sentencing, and the appeal by Defendant B is with merit.