beta
Cases
Do 2017 Do 5353 A. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)
(b) Property in breach of trust;
C. Violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (False Taxes)
The name of the crime recognized, such as the issuance of invoice: Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act)
Defendant
A
Appellant
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Attorney BH, D, BI, E in charge of legal affairs
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 2016No 3086 decided April 7, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
June 15, 2017
Text
The appeal shall be dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are determined.
1. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the original judgment as to the first issue of the grounds for appeal No. 1, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant involved in issuing the tax invoice in the future AJ Co., Ltd. on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the lower court, on the ground that the Defendant involved in issuing the tax invoice in the future of TJ Co., Ltd. on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and that the instant public prosecution constitutes a conviction of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act among the facts charged in the instant case, is justifiable, and there is no error by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, such as going against the legal principles of logic and experience, thereby exceeding the bounds of the due diligence.
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the argument that there was a mistake of mistake in the original judgment that found Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in the instant case, as to the grounds of appeal No. 2, the allegation that there was a mistake of mistake in part of the facts in the original judgment, which found Defendant guilty, is the only ground for appeal, or that there was no other ground for appeal that is subject to the original judgment ex officio, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jae-young
Justices Kim Shin-chul
Justices Kim Yong-deok
Justices Kim So-young
Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik