(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.08.01 2014노1019 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.08.01 2014노1019

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Of the charges of this case, violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Reasons

1. The court below held that the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice) among the facts charged in the instant case could not be deemed to have the purpose of profit-making, and therefore, it constitutes a case where there is no evidence of crime. However, the court below did not render a acquittal on the ground that the facts

In this case, only the Defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal. As such, the aforementioned acquittal portion does not exceed the scope of attack and defense between the parties, and is not subject to deliberation and determination by this court. Thus, this court did not separately state the conclusion of the judgment of the court below and did not state the guilty portion of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal: ① The point at which the Defendant’s last act with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was committed on January 25, 2008; and the instant prosecution was instituted only on January 4, 2014 when five years have passed since the statute of limitations was served. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the Defendant as it was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the omission of judgment; ② the imprisonment (six years) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on misapprehension of the legal principle and omission of judgment

A. In a case where there is a difference in the statutory penalty due to changes in indictments due to changes in indictments, it shall be deemed that the statutory penalty for the changed indictments is the basis for the statute of limitations period. As such, if the statutory penalty for the changed indictments has not yet expired at the time of prosecutions, but if the changed indictments are based on the statutory penalty for the changed indictments, it shall be acquitted on the grounds that the statute of limitations

참조조문

-조세범 처벌법

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대법원 2001. 8. 24. 선고 2001도2902 판결

-대법원 2015.10.15 2015도10779

-대법원 2013.07.26 2013도6182

-대구지방법원 2015.11.18 2015노4220

-대법원 2013. 7. 26. 선고 2013도6182,2013전도123 판결