(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.15 2014노3354 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.15 2014노3354

세무사법위반등

Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant B and C) employed the joint Defendant A as a head of his office while operating his tax accountant office, and caused A to assist in the tax return of transfer income tax under the direction and supervision of the Defendants. As such, the Defendants leased A a certified tax accountant qualification.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 million won, 2 million won of each fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio (defendant A and B) applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the contents of withdrawing the crimes Nos. 21, 78, and 160 as stated in Table I in the crime committed in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B in the trial of the court below. Since the above crimes were modified by permitting the amendment of the indictment, this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Defendant B’s ground of appeal on mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles despite the existence of such ground of ex officio reversal is still subject to deliberation by the party. As such, this is examined below, but it is based on the facts charged modified in the trial.

3. Defendant B and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles was rejected by the lower court on the grounds that the Defendants asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment, and on the premise that “the judgment on the assertion of Defendant B, C and their respective defense counsel” was “the judgment on the assertion of Defendant B, and their defense counsel” in the judgment.

In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as

The above judgment cannot be seen (in addition to the materials submitted by the Defendants in the testimony of Twit witness and the trial of the party, it does not affect the above judgment).

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.08.31 2016노303

-서울고등법원 2016.03.30 2016노80

-창원지방법원 2018.04.11 2017노2817

-수원지방법원 2018.04.30 2017노6142

-광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2015노2072