beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
(b).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In order to increase the business cost by means of reducing the amount of tax imposed on a business operator, Defendant 1: (a) transferred the personal expenses of the Defendant from an account under the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant in the name of the business operator; (b) pursuant to F’s instruction to directly transfer the personal expenses from the business account and pay them from the business account; and (c) pursuant to F’s implied consent, Defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as “crime List 1”) sent the funds to the business account in the name of the Defendant; and (d) did not intend to enter the details of the funds for each business account or personal business in the account of the F’s account or obtain approval on the current status of the funds or obtain approval on the current status of the funds for each business place; and (e) did not intend to obtain approval on the current status of the funds or obtain approval on the current status of the funds.
B) The Defendant paid to the trading company more amount than the actual transaction price in order to reduce tax according to F’s direction, and received from the trading company the amount excluding the value-added tax and the expense (A. 13%) from the trading company in preparation for the tax investigation, and received the money from the Defendant’s mother P account as shown in the attached Table 2 (D) of the crime list 2 (hereinafter the crime list 2D) in order to not reveal the above facts in preparation for the tax investigation, the Defendant paid the money to the F’s business account or personal account, or paid the money to F in cash, and explained the details of the fund execution to F when entering the funds in the report on the current status of the funds or obtaining approval of the report on the current status of the funds. The Defendant confirmed the details of the fund execution as above by the Defendant at the time of settlement of accounts by workplace, and thus, there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits from the Defendant.
C) Nevertheless, the lower court did not err in this part.