beta
Text
The judgment below
Among the parts of conviction against Defendant A and those concerning Defendant B and Defendant C, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ) Defendant received actual goods or services from K, N, and P, and issued a false tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services.
The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part on the grounds that the transaction content stated in the tax invoice differs from the actual transaction content.
B) K, N, P was actually established by L, M andO, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a purpose of evading tax avoidance or compulsory execution. C) The Defendant merely temporarily borrowed passbooks, passwords, and security cards from theO, not taken over. D) The Defendant is not deemed to have borrowed a construction business license from C as it actually participated in the I new construction, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have obtained a construction business license from C. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 won, two years of suspended sentence for imprisonment, and 160 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B and C1) misunderstanding of facts, Defendant C Co., Ltd. shall be subject to the judgment of the Agricultural Company J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”).
(2) The lower court’s sentence (each fine of KRW 5 million) on the grounds that it was too unreasonable to impose a subcontract and did not lend a construction business license to A.
C. In light of the background leading up to the establishment of the J and the type of operation, etc. of mistake of facts (not guilty portion of Defendant A), the J constitutes P and P and thus, Defendant A’s issuance of a tax invoice to Defendant A as a person supplied with P and P constitutes an issuance of a false tax invoice. 2) The lower court’s sentence on Defendant A and B is too unreasonable and unfair.
2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants and prosecutors
A. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A 1.