The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. After remanding the case, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, and acquitted the Defendant on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

On the other hand, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds as indicated in the following 2-A, and the trial prior to remand did not accept the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, thereby maintaining the same conclusion as the original judgment. However, upon accepting the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court reversed the conviction portion of the lower judgment and sentenced the Defendant at eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 1

With respect to the judgment of the party prior to remand, only the prosecutor appealed for the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the acquittal portion, and the Supreme Court held that the acquittal portion of the judgment prior to remand was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the filing of a criminal charge as prescribed by the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the validity of the disposition of notification subsequent thereto, and that the conviction portion and the judgment of the court prior to remand constituted concurrent crimes as prescribed by the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that one sentence should be sentenced, the entire part of

Ultimately, according to the purport of the judgment of remand, the entire part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (a fine of KRW 20 million)’s punishment (a fine of KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Where the head of the competent tax office files a complaint against a tax offense in accordance with the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act by misunderstanding the legal principles, he/she cannot take a disposition of notification, and the disposition of notification issued after the accusation shall be deemed null and void as the defect is significant and apparent.

Therefore, the defendant was made after the accusation.