The judgment below

Among them, M's second half of 2008, M's evasion of value added tax (criminal facts No. 2-b in the judgment below) against the defendant.

1. Progress of the case and scope of this court’s adjudication;

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The Defendant was prosecuted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) (Seoul District Court 2016 Gohap 51), and the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges charged against the Defendant on May 27, 2016 and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and a fine of 2.8 billion won.

2) As to this, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed (this Court Decision 2016No. 379), and this Court reversed the judgment of the court below on August 17, 2016. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the Defendant was acquitted on the charge of evading M’s value added tax (criminal facts No. 2-B as indicated in the judgment of the court below), but the remainder of the facts charged were found guilty, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three months and a fine of two billion won (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to the judgment subject to the judgment”). (3) The Defendant was only the Defendant on the instant judgment subject to the judgment subject to the judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13740), and Supreme Court Decision 2016 Decided October 28, 2016, the instant judgment subject to the judgment subject to the judgment became final and conclusive on November 2, 2016.

4) Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act (Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014), the instant judgment subject to a retrial ruled that, in the event a defendant fails to pay a fine by applying Article 70(2) of the current Criminal Act, 5.2 million won was detained in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of fine into one day.

5) However, the Constitutional Court on October 26, 2017 applied the amended provisions of Article 70(2) of the Criminal Act to the case where a first public prosecution is instituted after this Act enters into force.

“The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the above Criminal Act violates the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Decision 2015Hun-Ba239, 2016Hun-Ba17, 2016Hun-Ba). Accordingly, Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the above Criminal Act retroactive effect pursuant to Articles 75(6) and 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.