Defendant B’s conviction portion of the first instance judgment is reversed.

Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by a fine of 20,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure to issue a tax invoice, such as the list of annexed crimes, among the facts charged in the first instance trial of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, is specified in the facts charged, and it does not interfere with

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered a judgment of dismissing public prosecution against the Defendants on the grounds that the above facts charged were not specified, which misleads the Defendants of the fact and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The first instance sentencing of the Defendants (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 20 million won of fine: Defendant B) on the grounds that the sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)’s ex officio, and the meaning of the language and text of Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act stipulating that “No provision on restriction on concurrence with fines under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall apply to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act” shall apply to the person who commits an offense under Article 38(1)2 of the same Act. In punishing several offenses for which judgment has not become final and conclusive at the same time, the main sentence of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to the punishment of fines by increasing the maximum amount of fines for serious crimes by up to 1/2 of the total amount of fines for each of the above offenses.” As such, where a fine is imposed at the same time on each of the offenses under Article 38(1)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act,

(2) In the instant case where a public prosecution was instituted against the Defendant Company for violating Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the first instance court imposed a fine on the Defendant Company for the violation of each of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to each of the offenses, while imposing a fine for the violation of each of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and added the fine for each of the offenses.