The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., penalty of 8 million won) sentenced by the court below (e.g., penalty of 8 million won) is too unreasonable.

It is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants.

First, each of the crimes in this case is a false entry and submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer and a list of total tax invoices by seller, which fall under the preliminary and final return of value-added tax for February 2009. However, according to the records of this case, the defendant can be found to have submitted each of the total tax invoices to the director of the Namyang District Tax Office for the preliminary and final return of value-added tax on October 26, 2009 and January 22, 2010 at the same time as an accompanying document of the report. Thus, each of the crimes in this case is a common competition relationship, and the judgment of the court below which made a heavy weight of concurrent crimes in this regard is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the judgment of the court below clearly stated the "the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the "application of the Act" although there is no crime of having been a final judgment to punish Defendant A with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment after the crime of this case was committed, and the judgment below

(1) Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which became final and conclusive in the original trial, shall not be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.” Thus, the court below’s judgment shall be reversed without examining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below shall be reversed and it shall be decided again as follows.

Criminal facts

b) the summary of the evidence and evidence.