The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 30,000,000.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment (the fine of KRW 30 million for each of the defendants) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that “The provisions on restricted aggravation with respect to concurrence of fines under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to a person who commits an offense under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.” The meaning of Article 38(1)2 of the same Act is interpreted to the effect that, in punishing a number of offenses on which judgment has not become final and conclusive as fines at the same time, “an aggravated sentence shall not be imposed within the limit of 1/2 of the maximum amount of fines specified in the serious crime” under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, in the event that a fine is imposed on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act due to each of the above offenses at the same time, the fine should be separately imposed for each of the offenses and sentenced to a fine in total.

(2) In the case of this case where the Defendants violated Article 10(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the court below imposed a fine of KRW 30 million on all of the crimes without further proceeding to impose a fine for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the Defendants violated Article 10(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the court below imposed a fine of KRW 30 million on each of the crimes without further proceeding to impose a fine for each of the crimes.

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles under Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In addition, on November 14, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year to be punished by embezzlement at the Changwon District Court on the grounds of embezzlement on November 14, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2013. As such, each of the crimes of Defendant A’s holding in the lower judgment is subject to