beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Of the parts found guilty by the lower court, the transaction with H, Inc. I (hereinafter “H” and “I,” and, in the case of other corporations, the name of “stock company” is omitted) was actually supplied or supplied with meat products, and the false invoice is not issued or issued.
2) Of the parts found guilty by the lower court of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, with respect to the part on which H, I, and Korea Seoul Office (hereinafter “the Seoul Office”) issued an invoice or the part on which the invoice was issued from the above, the Defendant is not recognized as “for profit-making purposes” under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act”).
3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of KRW 540 million) is too unreasonable.
As a reference, the defense counsel’s appeal submitted on July 20, 2015 stated that “The persons involved in issuing and receiving false invoices at the party concerned was indicted for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, not for the specific crime aggravated violation (such as issuing false tax invoices). Only the defendant who has a relation to such relation with the defendant, who has applied the aggravated violation of the specific crime (such as issuing false tax invoices) shall be subject to the abuse of the authority to prosecute.”
However, this is not a legitimate ground for appeal since it was filed after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, and even if not, it is difficult to regard the prosecution of this case as significantly deviating from discretionary power due to the prosecutor's exercise of his or her authority to prosecute a person with an incomplete intention, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the above assertion cannot be accepted.
(b) inspection 1) the abnormal movement of F’s meat products and trade costs.