logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.01.11 2017노1161
조세범처벌법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding G is a business entity separate from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and actually supplied services to D and received tax invoices, etc. and submitted them. As such, the instant facts charged were acquitted, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. Even if the defendant was guilty of an unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

A) The F and the tax official J made a statement to the effect that it corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case in the court below’s trial, which are credibility in the statement.

B) The Defendant voluntarily employed F as D’s joint and several liability around January 2014. F, in fact, only provided work as D’s staff (a director) rather than G’s business operator, and K, the Defendant’s wife, up to F’s account management as well as D’s account management, drafted a letter of confirmation to the effect that it was “(5) a net time.”

C) On the business registration certificate, G’s location is “H 303” at Asan City H 303, but F only worked in D office even after G’s business operator’s registration, and F performed human resources supply and demand business, which is the same business as before business registration.

D) The Defendant’s wife K also worked in the D office and reported the accounting work of D and G as seen earlier, and issued the tax invoice of the two companies in the same IP address.

E) Even after F’s registration, the Defendant instructed F to work using a text message, etc.

2) The evidence adopted by the lower court for the aforementioned reasons as above, as well as the evidence adopted by the lower court.

arrow