beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The lower court determined that among the facts charged in this case, the part of the charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (No. 64,65,69,75) due to false entries in the list of the tax invoices by purchaser and seller at the first time in 2009 constitutes a case without proof of crime, and acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of the judgment, deeming that it constitutes a case without proof of crime; ② the submission of the list of the tax invoices by seller at the second time in 2007, which entered false statements on January 25, 2008, the submission of the list of the tax invoices by seller at the first time in 2008, the list of the total tax invoices by customer and by customer, and each violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of the list of the tax invoices by seller at the second time in 2008, which entered false statements on January 28, 2009, the statute of limitations has expired, and found the remainder of the charges to be acquitted by the Defendant in August.
Since only the defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing regarding the guilty portion, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty portion (3) of the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant, in fact, trades with K (No. 1), L (No. 37), M (No. 4) and N (No. 66) among the transaction partners listed in the attached list of crimes (1) in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not make a false entry of the transaction details with each of the above transaction partners on the list of tax invoices by customer.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below made a judgment of conviction on the list of total tax invoices by customer on each transaction item.
B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: