Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fine for 660,000.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
It is true that the Defendants’ mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant A and B) committed a “contract for the purchase of H/W equipment” with the J(hereinafter referred to as the “J”) company at the time when the Defendants received a loan from the Korea Software Financial Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) that is a special juristic person for victims, and that the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “C”) established a “K system construction agreement” with the “K system construction/W equipment purchase contract,” and limited the purpose of the loan as “H/W equipment purchase.”
However, if there is a gap in the period until the time when the loan is used to meet the purpose of the loan, it is not allowed to prohibit the loan from being used to be used for another purpose temporarily, and even if the loan was temporarily useful, the performance of the contract with J was possible.
The legal principles (defendant B) Defendant B was merely the position of a working-level person who shall comply with Defendant A’s instructions.
Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a co-principal without soliciting the defendant A and the crime.
The purpose of Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which has already been inherent in the act of Article 10(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, does not constitute "for profit-making purpose" which is provided for in Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as additional elements.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (the defendants) imposed by the court below on the defendants (the defendant's imprisonment of 3 years and fine of 660,000,000 won, the imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months and 2 years and delay of execution, and the fine of 30,000,000 won) are too unreasonable.
The prosecutor (2013 Gohap57) at least did not provide that the issuance and receipt of false tax invoices would be made according to Q and this case’s transaction.