The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is unfair because the punishment (25 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Before judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the provisions on aggravation of restrictions on concurrent fines in 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 in Article 20 of the same Act.

The meaning of the phrase “assumptive” is interpreted to the effect that the same provision does not apply to the punishment of a fine for a number of offenses on which judgment has not become final and conclusive at the same time, “an aggravated punishment by aggravating the maximum amount of fine for the most severe crime within the limit of 1/2 of the maximum amount of fine specified for the most severe crime” under the text of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, in cases where a fine is imposed at the same time on each crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to each of the above offenses, the fine shall be imposed separately for each of the above offenses and the amount of fine shall be imposed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do11938, Dec. 26, 2013; 94Do952, May 31, 1996, etc.). In such cases, the lower court applied Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to each of the crimes of this case, while imposing a fine and adding it to each of the crimes pursuant to Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it is difficult to recognize that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on each of the crimes of this case and Article 37 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 39 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it seems that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on each of the crimes of this case and Article 37 of the Punishment Act.

The conclusion is.