beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentencing of the prosecutor’s court below is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Under the judgment, the sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor together are examined as follows.
The amount of tax evasion due to each of the crimes of this case exceeds 60 million won in total; the total amount of tax invoices issued exceeds 3.5 billion won; the total amount of tax invoices received exceeds 1.6 billion won; the defendant paid 15 billion won out of the amount of tax evaded; each of the crimes of this case is a serious criminal that disturbs national tax order and damages tax justice; but there are unfavorable circumstances to the defendant; on the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is committed at the time and depth of each of the crimes of this case; each of the crimes of this case is concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violating the Customs Act, which became final and conclusive on May 8, 2015 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, in consideration of equity in cases where the judgment was rendered simultaneously; the punishment should be imposed; the support for his family; the defendant's age, sex, environment, means and consequence of the crime; and the records and circumstances after the crime are not found to be excessive or excessive.
3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 10(1)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of each tax invoice) is clearly erroneous in office under Article 10(2)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of each tax invoice under Article 10(2)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act). Thus, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is clearly erroneous in office, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.