The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Eastern District Court.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. It shall be deemed ex officio.

Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not apply to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, with respect to restrictions on concurrent fines under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act.

“.......”

The meaning of this is that the main text of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act does not apply to “an aggravated sentence by up to 1/2 of the maximum amount of fines prescribed for the most severe crime” when a person is punished by a fine at the same time for a number of offenses for which judgment has not become final and conclusive.”

Therefore, where a fine is imposed at the same time on a crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to each of the offenses prescribed in Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, a fine shall be imposed for each of the offenses and the sum of the fines shall be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do952, May 31, 1996; 2013Do1235, Apr. 11, 2013). The lower court upheld the first instance judgment, which was sentenced to a fine by applying Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the offense of violation of Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was brought against each of the offenses, while imposing a fine on each of the offenses committed simultaneously, on the grounds that there is a substantive concurrent relationship between each of the offenses.

However, the judgment of the court below is contrary to the above legal principles, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3...