특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the part in the indictment) on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on willful negligence.
The argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the defendant A only when it comes to the final appeal that the court below did not consider it as the ground for appeal or ex officio.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the treatment of concurrent crimes as prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the “total amount of supply values, etc.” as prescribed by Article 8-2(1)
In addition, the argument that the judgment below erred by exceeding the limit of discretion in sentencing is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.
However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing
Defendant
In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Conclusion.