beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court to the summary of the reasons for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment and fine of 1,600,000,000) is too unreasonable; and
2. Determination factors are recognized, such as that the defendant shows his or her attitude to repent of his or her mistake, that there are no criminal records of the same kind and no criminal records of the suspension of execution, and that the defendant does not seem to have taken the economic benefits to the extent of the evaded amount of tax.
However, the Defendant purchased non-data scrap metal on a large scale for the purpose of gaining profits from the evasion of value-added tax, and sold it to other companies, and did not pay the value-added tax. In particular, the sales proceeds received by the Defendant were immediately withdrawn in cash or withdrawn in cash after transferring it to another account under the name of the Defendant, and the assets to pay value-added tax were almost not left. Ultimately, it is recognized that the Defendant’s unfavorable sentencing factors such as the collection of value-added tax against the Defendant, as well as the collection of value-added tax against the scrap metal business operator supplied to the Defendant, making it impossible to collect value-added tax by the Defendant, and the amount of evaded tax exceeds 1.5 billion
In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed to be adequate, and it cannot be deemed that it is too unreasonable.
Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that he was not in the so-called branch office and actually engaged in the business, even if the Defendant’s assertion is true, the Defendant cannot be exempted from liability as an accomplice, and it is also difficult to view it as an element of sentencing that might be somewhat applied to the Defendant’s punishment.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion.