(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.09.27 2016노3379 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.09.27 2016노3379

조세범처벌법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of omission of KRW 1,515,830,450 in the amount of the instant land (referring to the current three-year L, M, N, andO) by means of the unregistered resale of the instant land (referring to the current three-year L, N, andO) with I and J, K (the present three-year L, N, andO) with regard to the facts constituting a crime set forth in the judgment of the court below by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant decided to purchase the instant land, but the new purchaser who acquired the contract from the seller, as the contract was acquired, cannot be deemed to be a resale of the unregistered land.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 30 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court: (a) concluded a sales contract on the instant land with non-R, the owner of the instant land, and paid intermediate payments to the Defendant; and (b) concluded a sales contract on the instant land; and (c) concluded a sales contract with the seller to request the buyer to prepare a sales contract in the name of seven persons, including P on the date of the remainder payment; (b) Q, one of the buyers of the instant land, is deemed to have been directly constructed in the building management ledger at the staff of the Daejeon District Tax Office, but was not directly constructed in the building management ledger; (c) decided to purchase the land and the building in the form of 1.2 billion won from the Defendant; and (d) decided to purchase the land and the building in the form of 1.2 billion won from the Defendant. Since the Defendant was aware of the land under the ownership of the Defendant, the former owner of the instant land, who was the owner of the instant land, did not directly pay the purchase price to the Defendant as a matter of course; and (d) opened the account and

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2018.03.29 2017노541

-수원지방법원 2016.03.23 2016노624

-대전고등법원 2017.04.21 2016노484

-수원지방법원 2016.06.02 2016노1380

-서울북부지방법원 2017.07.14 2016노2177