The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A The fine of KRW 10,00,000, and the defendant limited liability company B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,00.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of KRW 10 million, and fine of KRW 3 million for Defendant Limited Company B) is too unreasonable.

Each crime in the holding of the court below is established separately for each of the following crimes: (a) the defendant submitted a list of total invoices by customer and a list of total invoices by seller, which falls under the reporting of value-added tax for two years in 2010; and (b) the

However, according to the records of this case, the defendant filed a value-added tax return with the director of the tax office on October 25, 2010, and submitted each sales and purchase tax invoice as an accompanying document of the return. Thus, each of the above crimes is in a mutually competitive relationship. Since the court below, which held that there are substantive concurrent relationships, did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(b) Defendant B limited liability company: Articles 18 and 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; and

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants who choose to impose punishment: Each selective fine

1. Defendant A who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: each of them.