조세범처벌법위반등
Of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the part on the crime No. 4-B and the part on innocence shall be reversed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to failure to receive tax invoices is not established on the ground that the part below 48 million won in the transaction amount among the transaction of fuel oil, etc. purchased over 134 times is entitled to deduction of the purchase tax amount of value-added tax pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Restriction of Taxation, and the tax invoice is not issued.
Nevertheless, the court below found all of the transactions amounting to 48 million won or less as guilty. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B) The Defendant Co-Defendant D’s statement in the lower court that the Defendant Co-Defendant D issued a false tax invoice as if I supplied fuel oil to the Defendant Company, even though the Defendant Company did not supply fuel oil to the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company was actually supplied fuel oil by I.
In addition, the defendant company was actually supplied with fuel oil from L.
Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not receive fuel oil from I and L.
Recognizing the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, all of the charges are convicted.
Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.
C) The Defendant was aware of the oil which was distributed with no material or no permission, miters, miters, and miters, and did not know that it was a stolen property acquired by larceny.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charges that the defendant acquired mitt C oil, a stolen article, over 10 times. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.
2) Sentence 1, 3, 6 and 4-A of the lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant (as indicated in its holding, No. 6 months of imprisonment and No. 4 of the judgment)
(b)one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor and fines of 700,000,000 for crimes are too excessive;