logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주고등법원 2015.03.19 2015노13
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Article 10 (3) 3" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court below in Part 2 of the second sentence is "Article 10 (3)."

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment for a term of one-year suspension) is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant's crime of this case leads to confusion in tax administration due to each of the crimes of this case, and the total amount of the list of total tax invoices submitted by the defendant is not certain.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant seems to be seriously against each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's living conditions led to the crime of this case, and the defendant paid the value-added tax to be paid late, which seems to not remain the benefit accrued from the crime of this case. The fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than the fine imposed due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is light enough to be reversed.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the prosecutor is groundless, and the "Article 10 (3) 3" of Article 10 (3) 3 and 10 (1) 2" of Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the "criminal fact" of Article 10 (4) of the same part of the judgment of the court below is clear that the "criminal" of Article 10 (3) 3 and Article 10 (1) 2 of the