beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A is punished by fine of KRW 9,500,00, and Defendant B is punished by fine of KRW 4,750,000.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing: Defendant A: a fine of KRW 10 million; Defendant B: a fine of KRW 5 million) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio. Each of the facts charged in the instant case is an offense falling under Articles 10(3)1 and 18 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012); Articles 10(3)1 and 18 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Articles 10(3)1 and 18 of the same Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 20 of the same Act provides that the restriction on the concurrence of fines under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to a person who commits the offense.
The meaning of the phrase “no restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction restriction on the concurrence of fines” is interpreted to the effect that “an increase of fines by up to 1/2 of the maximum amount of fines prescribed for serious crimes” prescribed in the main sentence of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to the punishment of fines for several offenses for which judgment has not become final and conclusive, and therefore, in cases where a fine is imposed concurrently on each offense of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the above offenses, a fine shall be imposed separately for each offense and the amount of fine shall be imposed.
(2) In the event that each of the crimes of this case was selected by the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. If so, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and thus, on the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing.