beta
Text
[Defendant E] The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed.
Defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of 500 million won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A: The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a three-year imprisonment and a fine of 25.2 billion won) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B: The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a three-year imprisonment and a fine of 26.5 billion won) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C1) Of the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not commit a joint principal offense in collusion with A and B, with regard to the guilty portion (2016 senior 179, 215, 268, 317, 325, 337, 344, 345, 361, 379).
Only as an employee, it has been engaged in the work such as issuing a false tax invoice of A and B.
Therefore, the defendant is merely an aiding and abetting crime and is not a joint principal offender.
2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 years of imprisonment and fine 23.8 billion won) is too unreasonable.
(d)
Defendant
D1) As to the guilty portion (2016 Gohap 215) of the lower judgment’s judgment, the Defendant requested the principal offender A, B, and C (hereinafter “A, etc.”) to prepare false tax data on the purchase portion of non-data oil, and did not request the preparation, etc. of tax data for the remaining portion.
In light of the overall circumstances, including the fact that A, etc. was fully in charge of the certification letter related to the report of value added tax, the name and seal necessary for issuing the tax invoice, and the password, etc. of the company that manages the main credit card terminal management company, etc., the Defendant did not know the fact that A, etc. was to submit a false list of the total tax invoices by means of horizontal transactions.
If the defendant had known the above facts in advance, he did not pay the price related to the list of total tax invoices by false purchasing agencies or has appropriately reduced the price, but did not take such measures.
According to this, among the facts charged, the list of total tax invoices by customer exceeds the scope delegated by the defendant.