The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20 million.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case in the absence of the fact that Defendant B had evaded corporate tax, which was withdrawn from Defendant B’s corporate account and deposited into Defendant A’s personal account. The court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant B had evaded corporate tax, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (each fine of KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable, even if not, on the other hand, unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that “The provisions on restricted aggravation on concurrence with fines in Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to the persons who have committed an offense under Article 3,” and the meaning of the language and text thereof shall not be construed to the effect that, in punishing both crimes of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as both of which judgment has not become final and conclusive at the same time, “an aggravated sentence shall not be applied to the persons who have committed an offense under Article 3” under the main sentence of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act by adding up to one half of the maximum amount of fines for serious crimes.

Therefore, when a fine is imposed concurrently on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the fine should be imposed separately for each crime and the amount of the fine should be imposed.

(2) Article 38 of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendants shall be punished by a fine for each of the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the Defendants violated Article 18 and Article 3(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do952, May 21, 1996). However, in the instant case where the Defendants were indicted for violating Article 18 and Article 3(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the lower court imposed a fine for each of the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act,