The judgment below

The violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the non-issuance of the tax invoice and K-related tax invoice.

1. Progress of lawsuit and the scope of trial of this court;

A. 1) The lower court convicted all of the facts charged in the instant case, and the Defendant appealed on the grounds that the facts charged are unspecified, erroneous facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing. 2) The lower court reversed the lower judgment prior to the remanding of the instant case, which acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the non-issuance of the tax invoice among the facts charged in the instant case and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure to receive the tax invoice related to K, and found the remainder guilty (However

(1) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) due to tax evasion on

(ii)In respect of the violation (tax) portion, not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of the crime, sentenced the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of the crime), sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of 3 years and 2.3 billion won.

Accordingly, the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the party before remanding.

3) The Supreme Court held that since the administrative judgment revoking the disposition imposing corporate tax on C became final and conclusive, it is not possible to maintain the part concerning the defendant's violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (tax) due to the defendant's evasion of corporate tax on the ground that the defendant newly discovered evidence of not guilty as to the part on the part on which the defendant evaded corporate tax against C, and that the remaining part of the appeal is groundless. Furthermore, the judgment prior to remand, which rendered a single sentence on the ground that the above part and the remaining guilty part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment prior to remand is reversed, the guilty part (including the part on innocence) in the judgment prior to remand.