beta
Text
The judgment below
Of those, the part as to Defendant B is reversed.
Defendant
A corporation shall be punished by fine 15,00.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (the imprisonment of two years, the suspension of execution of three years, and the fine of 1 billion won, and the fine of 30 million won in case of Defendant B) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination ex officio as to part of the facts charged against Defendant B
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant B, a corporation engaged in the wholesale and retail business of architectural materials, issued a false tax invoice as if Party B, who is the actual operator, supplied goods to GCCC Co., Ltd., Ltd. as if it supplied goods to the Defendant’s business as shown in [Attachment 1] to 106.
B. The main text of Article 22 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015) provides that “The statute of limitations for prosecution of offenses prescribed in Articles 3 through 14 shall expire when five years lapse.”
In addition, Article 22 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015) provides that "the period of prescription of a crime prescribed in Articles 3 through 14 expires after seven years of the statute of limitations," and Article 1 of the Addenda thereof provides that "this Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation."
Article 2 provides that "The prescription of a public prosecution against a crime committed before this Act enters into force shall be governed by the previous provisions, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 22."
Therefore, the statute of limitations of prosecution against the crimes of Articles 3 through 14 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act committed before December 28, 2015 is five years.
Defendant
Of the facts charged against Company B, the portion of the attached table Nos. 1 through 106 in the indictment against Company B is that A, the actual operator, issued a false tax invoice in violation of Article 10 (3) Item 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act over 106 times from January 2, 2012 to October 31, 2012.
The relation of this part of the facts charged is a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by each document when the actual operator A issues false tax invoices.