logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.16 2018노458
조세범처벌법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant borrowed the name of F or I’s business operator in accordance with the direction of the network D, received KRW 1.5 million per month in return for the use of the name of F or I, cash deposit, withdrawal, driving, etc., and did not participate in the act of issuing the networkD’s false tax invoice, and did not intend to commit the act.

The punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more accomplices. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, the joint principal offender requires the fact of implementation of a crime through the functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with another person’s intent, and to shift one’s own intent by using another person’s act. Such joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but not to restrain it. However, it is sufficient to view that prior conspiracy of a crime plan is not necessary, or that each accomplice has mutual understanding that each of the accomplices is able to meet the constituent requirements or share the actions in essence related to the constituent requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below duly adopted and found the following facts to be issued in the name of each of the Defendants in collusion and the following facts.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

Defendant “F” in the Prosecutor’s Office from February 4, 2014 to the same year.

9. up to 18. The mother G.

arrow