(b) Where a taxpayer under the proviso to Article 9-31 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not report the tax base;

(b) It shall be interpreted that the proviso of Article 9-31 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act includes not only the case where the taxpayer does not file any return on the tax base, but also the case where the result of tax evasion has been caused by false data or by omitting the return.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 330,00,000 won and by imprisonment for a term of 3 years and 2 months, respectively.

When the above fine is not paid, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 1,000,000 into one day.

The number of days under detention of Defendant 1 prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for 5 years for Defendant 1, for 3 years for Defendant 2, and for 3 years for each time from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The sentence of a fine against Defendant 2 shall be suspended.

The prosecution against Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 is dismissed.

The prosecutor's appeal (appeal against the defendant 4, 5, and 6) and all appeals against the defendant 5, 6 and 7 are dismissed.

Point 1 and the court below, based on the testimony of the appraiser, such as the contents in the appraisal report prepared by the appraiser non-indicted 1, deducted the amount equivalent to 3 percent of the reduced amount by deducting the amount calculated by the weight of 15 percent not required for the portion omitted in the sales of the defendant 5 corporation from the cost and deducted the amount equivalent to 15 percent of the reduced amount. As to the omitted portion of the sales of the defendant 6 corporation, the amount of the public prosecution instituted by deducting 3 percent of the reduced amount in terms of cost calculation was recognized respectively, but this is based on the grounds that it cannot be recognized for the tax calculation, so the above appraisal report was adopted and the decision of the court below which rejected the testimony of non-indicted 2

Point 2, the court below's sentence imposed on each of the above Defendants is unreasonable because it is too unfasible.

Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s summary of the grounds for appeal

No. 1 and the evidence of conviction cited by the judgment of the court below is insufficient and the contents of the evidence of conviction are insufficient and it is contrary to the rule of experience, and rather, if the evidence of the court below is well examined, it can be easily recognized that the defendant did not participate in each crime recorded in the facts charged or committed a crime. Thus, there is an error of law of misconception of facts or finding facts without evidence.

No. 2. Of the facts charged in this case, in light of the fact that the operation of the company's changed rules (tax evasion) continues to be made effective from Non-Indicted 4, the husband of the defendant, and the fact that the dividend has been implemented according to customary practices, and the defendant's academic background, experience and experience, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant recognized that the profits distributed to the defendant were caused by tax evasion. It cannot be deemed that the defendant participated in and carried out a public invitation for professional and technical tax evasion by the non-indicted 5, the defendant transferred the management right of the company to Non-Indicted 5, who was entirely aware of the defendant on July 1973, and thereafter did not participate in the management of the company at least thereafter, it is clear that the defendant left from the public invitation relation with the company's act of tax evasion. Meanwhile, under Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the time limit for the withdrawal of national taxes is obviously the time limit for payment of national taxes to the defendant before the expiration of the payment period for the above company's whole period of tax evasion.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be borne only by the responsibility for attempted crimes. Since Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act do not punish attempted crimes, the defendant's act does not eventually constitute a national tax evasion act, in the case of national tax that requires a taxpayer to file a tax base return by the criteria for the decision of imposing taxes on corporate tax and corporate operating tax, etc., the time when the taxpayer files a tax base return cannot be seen as the time when the taxpayer commences the act of evading the corporate tax in early July 1973 by completely withdrawing from the management of the defendant 5 corporation after early July 1973, it is clear that the defendant left the public contest relationship before the commencement of the act of evading the corporate tax in 1973, and according to Article 33 of the Criminal Act, the provisions on accomplices (Article 30 of the Criminal Act in this case) concerning the act of processing the crime to be established due to his status status shall not be punished. Meanwhile, if a representative, employee, or other employee of the corporation commits an offense in addition to the punishment.

However, according to the legislative intent of Article 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, since Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was enacted for the purpose of aggravated punishment against a representative of a corporation, agent, employee, or other person with status as provided in Articles 3 and 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, since the person with status as provided in Articles 3 and 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes can be exempted from punishment by stipulating that the person with status as provided in the above Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes may be exempted from punishment in light of the circumstances, since it is obvious that the defendant is not a person with status, the defendant cannot be punished under Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, regardless of punishment under Article 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, since the court below accepted the facts charged as it is and erred in the interpretation and application of the Act.

Point 3, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s summary of the grounds for appeal

No. 1. The act of evading corporate tax does not constitute an offense unless it reaches the maturity of corporate tax, and it is clear that the maturity of the payment deadline expires after the Government's investigation was made. The current Corporate Tax Act takes the government's investigation and determination and notification to the taxpayer of the decision without using the taxation method for which the taxation claim becomes finalized by the taxpayer's report as to the method of determining the taxation claim. The assessment standard of green-reported corporation is merely the reference materials for the government's written investigation and determination, and the taxation claim becomes final and conclusive by the government's written investigation and notification to the taxpayer of the decision. Thus, the investigation of corporate tax in 1974 against Defendant 6 corporation was conducted on October 10, 1975, but since the above decision of taxation was not notified to Defendant 6 corporation as of October 1, 1975, it was entirely erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the corporate tax payment period and the corporate tax payment period cannot be determined as of October 10, 1975, and it did not affect the judgment.

No. 2, the decision of taxation of corporate tax in 1974 was made on October 10, 1975, and the decision of taxation of corporate tax in 1974 of the above company was not notified to the company that is the taxpayer on November 1, 1975 that this case was accused to the prosecutor's office, and the notification of the decision of taxation of corporate tax in 1974 to the company was made after November 14, 1975, and the payment deadline was clearly made after November 29, 1975, and the court below's decision of taxation of corporate tax and tax amount in 1974 to the company that is the taxpayer on October 10, 1975 that the court below notified the company that is the taxpayer on October 10, 1975, it is obvious that the fact-finding that the decision of taxation of corporate tax and tax amount in 1974

Defendant 3’s defense counsel’s summary of the grounds for appeal

Point 1, it is wrong that the facts were caused as a crime of adultery by admitting them without any specific evidence.

The judgment of the court below cannot be maintained because the second point and the second point, the complainant, the non-indicted 6 cancelled the complaint.

Point 3 and the sentence of the court below is too excessive and the judgment of the court below is unfair.

The defense counsel of the defendant 5 corporation shall give a summary of the grounds for appeal

1. Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that any act of tax evasion under the proviso of Article 9(1) constitutes a crime of tax evasion by fraud or other unlawful acts. The corporate tax or corporate tax which the defendant company evaded shall be interpreted to have determined the tax base and the amount of the corporate tax under Articles 32 through 35 of the Corporate Tax Act and Articles 33 through 35 of the Business Tax Act, and the amount of the national tax claim shall be determined by notifying each taxpayer of the determined tax evasion under the provisions of Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 32 of the Business Tax Act, although the tax base and the amount of the tax evasion under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the same Act were not determined by the court below for the first five years after the date on which the determination of the tax evasion was made. The court below erred by misapprehending the tax base and the amount of the corporate tax for the first five years after the date on which the determination of the tax evasion was made. The court below erred by misapprehending the tax base and the amount of the tax evasion under Article 175 of the Corporate Tax Act.

No. 2. The court below recognized that the interest accrued from the external income of the defendant company under the attached Form No. 45,236,198 won, gold75,793,607 won in 1974 and interest accrued from the omission of sales as loans shall be deemed as 24,214,095 won in 1973, 15, and 15,627,210 won in 1974, and the sales amount shall be deemed as 56,790,921 won in 1974, 253,16,364 won in 1974, and 3% in 1974, were not calculated on the grounds that the court below erred in calculating the tax base of the defendant company's income from the omission of sales, and the court below found that the court below erred in its determination of the amount of income from the defendant company's income from the omission of sales, as a matter of course, without any evidence or evidence established by the court below.

Point 3, the sentence imposed on the Defendant Company is extremely inappropriate;

Defendant 6’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal

Point 1, the lower court did not consider all the sales cost for the omitted sales amount in 1973, while the sales cost for the omitted sales amount in 1974 is less than 8,612,617 won, without any ground, according to the statements made by Nonindicted 3 of the lower court and the investigative agency by Nonindicted 3 of the witness of the lower court.

However, the lower court’s appraiser 1 calculated 140,295,006 won based on scientific data and calculated 126,131,333 won. Ultimately, it is clear that the lower court found the fact to be erroneous and did not fully deduct the sales cost of 9.5 million won for the omitted product amount to be naturally deducted from the Defendant Company’s corporate tax omission table in 1973, and it calculated and deducted the sales cost of 21,087,50 won for the omitted product amount to be deducted from the omission of corporate tax in 1974.

In addition, according to the statements of the defendant 2, the non-indicted 3, and the non-indicted 7 of the court below's witness, it can be known that the non-indicted 8, who had been a financial partner of the company, embezzled the company's public funds of KRW 30 million around the end of 1973 and appropriated the company's funds of KRW 30 million for losses that were not reimbursed due to lack of financial resources. Thus, as long as the above amount of the non-indicted 9,500,000 won as the non-indicted 9,50,000 won should be deducted in the corporate tax list, the above losses should be deducted in the corporate tax list, although the court below

No. 2, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant company is extremely excessive in sentencing rules.

Defendant 7’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal

Although the facts charged as stated in the indictment of this case are not specified due to no specific factual presentation at all, it was erroneous that the court below accepted them and rendered a judgment of conviction by recognizing them as it is, and it was erroneous that the confession of the Defendants was made as evidence of only one day and the judgment of conviction was made by using only the confession of the Defendants as evidence of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Point 2, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal against the defendant 4 are examined.

In full view of the records, the court below's measure of rejecting the evidence partially consistent with the facts charged by several opposing evidence revealed in the court below's decision, and considering the defendant 5 corporation's list of shareholders and the statement of the witness non-indicted 9, the defendant 5 corporation's representative director at the court of the trial submitted by the order to submit a report by the court of the trial to the court of the trial, the defendant resigned from the office of the defendant 5 corporation on July 14, 1973 on the register. However, on October 1972, since the above company's shares were transferred to non-indicted 5 and the transfer of ownership was completed, it is evident that the defendant did not actually participate in the business and did not actually have any relation with the above company, and it is just in the court below's measure of rejecting the evidence, and it cannot be found that the court below's decision that rejected the defendant's report or omission of the above company's corporate tax base for the year 1973 corporation's business after the lapse of the business year concerned and payment after the representative director's registration, barring special circumstances.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal against the defendant 1, 2, 5, and 6 corporation, first and second points of the grounds of appeal against the defendant 1's defense counsel, second points of the grounds of appeal against the defendant 2, second point of the grounds of appeal against the defense counsel of the defendant 5, second point of the grounds of appeal against the defendant 6 corporation, first point of the grounds of appeal against the defense counsel of the defendant 6 corporation and first point of the grounds of appeal against the defendant 3's defense counsel of the defendant 7 corporation.

If the evidence cited by the court below was examined in comparison with the records, the court below did not err in the finding and calculating the evaded tax amount of each defendant (except the defendant 3) as well as each criminal facts which the court below found guilty, and the criminal facts also specified in its finding and judgment, and it cannot be deemed that the court below's measures to employ the appraiser 1's written expert testimony or the testimony of the same person and to reject the evidence against this cannot be deemed to mislead the judgment of evidence and to mislead the judgment of evidence. Thus, each of the above arguments

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 1 are examined together with the grounds of appeal by the defendant 2, the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 2 and the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 5.

The provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act stipulate that taxes imposed and collected by a taxpayer by a report shall be determined or examined by the Government on the tax base of the relevant item and the payment deadline expires: Provided, That where the Government is unable to determine or determine the tax base by failing to report the tax base, the period for filing a report on the relevant item of taxation shall be the period for filing an act of tax evasion when the period for filing a report on the relevant item of taxation expires. Thus, the proviso of the above provision shall include not only the cases where there is no report, but also the cases where the tax base is returned by false data or the omission of the report results in tax evasion. As such, Article 26 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 26 of the Business Tax Act provides that a corporation liable to pay taxes shall be deemed 15 days after the date of filing a report on the tax base of the corporation for each business year and the date on which the tax base of the corporation should be reported within 16 months after the date of filing a report on the remaining tax base of the corporation within 16 months after the date of filing of the report.

Of the second grounds for appeal by Defendant 1’s defense counsel, it is determined that the same Defendant did not take part in the act of tax evasion, withdraws prior to the time of acceptance in the open recruitment relationship, and at least he did not take part in the act of tax evasion.

The evidence cited by the lower court reveals that the Defendant took part in a series of acts of tax evasions at the time of the original judgment to obtain the benefit therefrom, and there is no evidence to view that the Defendant voluntarily took part in the act of tax evasions before the expiration of the term as a principal offender of the act of tax evasions, and that the measure taken by the lower court is justifiable. Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 8 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act are not a penal provision that is aggravated by a crime

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 5 company, the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 6 company, and the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 7 company

First, with respect to Defendants 1 and 2, the court below imposed a fine on the Defendants by applying Article 8(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. However, it is clear in itself at the time of the original adjudication that the amount is less than twice the amount of evaded tax when the original adjudication by the Defendant was conducted. However, Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act provides that a fine equivalent to two to five times the amount of evaded tax shall be imposed concurrently, and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act provides that a fine shall be reduced by 1/2 of the maximum amount of the fine. In light of the above provision, the court below’s measure that reduced statutory small amount was reduced by

Then, examining the parts against the above Defendants other than Defendant 1 and 2 in detail, such as the motive, means, consequence, the identity of the above Defendants, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., in light of the circumstances under which the court below lawfully investigated the sentence, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the above Defendants or the prosecutor, it is not considered that the sentence imposed by the court below is inappropriate, too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, the grounds for appeal on this point by the prosecutor and the above Defendants cannot be accepted.

ex officio, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 is examined.

The crime of adultery is a crime that is a crime that is prosecuted only upon the complaint of the victim's spouse, and it is obvious by the entry of a certificate bound by the record that the claim for divorce trial was withdrawn on May 22, 1976 between the claimant, the non-indicted 6 and the defendant 3 filed prior to the complaint by the non-indicted 6, the spouse of the defendant 3, the defendant, and the defendant 3, the Seoul Family Court and the defendant 75dd249. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the simple notification suit filed by the non-indicted 6, the complainant of the crime of adultery, against the defendant, etc. on September 3, 1975, against the defendant, etc., should lose its effect retroactively at the time of the complaint in accordance with the validity of the withdrawal of the above judgment. Accordingly, the facts charged in this case against the defendant, etc. fall under Article 327 subparagraph 2

In accordance with the above decision, the remainder of the appeal by the prosecutor except for the part against the defendant 1 and 2 among the appeal by the prosecutor and each appeal by the defendant 5, 6 and 7 are without merit, and all of the above appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 1 and 2 and the appeal by the defendant 1 and 3 are accepted, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is judged again after the pleading.

Facts of crime

Defendant 1 was a director of Defendant 5 corporation, 6 corporation, 7 corporation, 13 corporation and 14 corporation from January 1, 1971, and was involved in the management of the company as a major shareholder. Defendant 2 owned 28 percent of the shares of Defendant 6 corporation from January 1, 1964 to March 3, 1975, and held office as the representative director;

1. Defendant 1 conspired to evade national taxes imposed on Nonindicted Co. 10, 11, 12 and Defendant 5. From January 1, 1973 to June 30 of the same year, Defendant 1 conspired to evade national taxes imposed on the said Co. 5. From January 1, 1973 to June 30 of the same year, Defendant 1, at the office, etc. of the said company located in Masan-dong (hereinafter omitted), the above company's product product soundness of 367,047,00 won, without going through the sales office of Nonindicted Co. 14, the above company's sales agent, instead of going through the sales office of Nonindicted Co. 14, and directly received orders from the regional liaison office of the above company, issued orders, sold products, and sold the above facts by the method of withdrawing evidentiary documents, such as order, notice of dispatch, summary list, etc., the amount of income from the above sales cannot be recognized as corporate tax, but the tax base of the above company was found to be omitted for the above KRW 53,193,14.7.24.

2. From December 1, 1972 to November 30, 1974, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to evade national taxes imposed on Nonindicted 7, 15, 16 and Defendant 6 and sold the company’s office, etc. in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Pungdong (hereinafter omitted) with abnormal transaction methods such as omitting a report, tax base amount and tax calculation sheet for the company. The fact is not stated in the relevant tax-related book, but the fact is not stated in the separate tax-related book, and the evidentiary documents such as the certificate prior to shipment are incinerated. Meanwhile, when filing a tax base by unlawful means such as omitting the entry of the entry of the entry of the list of tax base and the calculation table of tax amount, the above company’s tax periods, each tax item of the above company after omitting the tax base of each of the above tax items, and passing the payment deadline of each of the above tax items after making a decision of the Government as it is, to evade national taxes total 48,825,948 won;

3. Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 17, 18, 19, 20, 11 and Defendant 7, Nonindicted 13, and 14 to evade national taxes imposed on them. Defendant 7’s office, etc., located in 19 from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974 at the time of Jinhae-si, with the manufacture, sale, and sales of storage cells, carbon bars, etc., the products of the said company, and the sales and sales as agent, as indicated in the separate report omitted tax base amount and the calculation table of the tax amount with regard to the above companies, such as omitting the tax base amount and the entry in the calculation table of the tax amount when filing a tax return by unlawful means such as omitting the attached tax base return, omitting the tax base by each taxable period of the said companies, and passing the payment deadline of each of the above tax items after making a decision of the government or after making a decision of the government.

Summary of Evidence

The facts of the ruling shall:

1. Each statement that conforms to the relevant part of the judgment of each representative director of the court below and the trial court in accordance with each of the defendants, defendant 5, non-indicted 14, defendant 6, non-indicted 13, and defendant 7.

1. The statement that conforms to the judgment of the court below from among the statements of the non-indicted 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 21 to 35 of the witness of the court below at the court below

1. The statements made by the prosecutor as to the defendants and the non-indicted 11, 20, 19, and 23 of each protocol of examination of the suspect concerned that conforms to the relevant part

1. Each written statement made by the prosecutor against Non-Indicted 10, 11, 21, 24, 3, 26, 7, 27, 29, and 22, which conforms to the facts in the judgment;

1. Statement that conforms to the relevant parts of the statements set out in the Statement Nos. 2, 21, 11, 23, 10, 28, 12, 15, 16, 7, 19, 20, and 21

1. Each written appraisal of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the lower court appraiser

1. Each description of the seized Nonindicted Co. 14, 6, Nonindicted Co. 13, Defendant7, Defendant 7, and Defendant 5’s respective documents of investigation into a tax offense (Evidence No. 15 through No. 18, No. 25)

1. The evidence can be found in full view of the descriptions, etc. in one reference file and one copy of the coal application (Evidence Nos. 11 to 13) confiscated No. 1.

Application of Statutes

Defendant 1, each of the so-called Defendants 1 and 2, inclusive, falls under Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 9(1)1 and 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the Defendants choose the prescribed limited term of imprisonment; however, the Defendants, as the first offender, have a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as when he was dissatisfying social circumstances, and when he was under a discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, he shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and two years and six months, respectively, and Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine under Article 8(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for six years from the day when he was sentenced to a fine under Article 9 and Article 70 of the Criminal Act; Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine under Article 53 of the same Act for six years from the day when he was sentenced to a fine under the above provision on the tax claim of the above Defendant 100 million won.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

Of the summary of the facts charged against Defendant 3 and the facts charged against Defendant 1, Defendant 3 is the spouse who was reported to the marriage with Nonindicted 6 and Defendant 1 is the spouse who is aware that Defendant 3 is the spouse, and Defendant 3 was the spouse, and Defendant 1 was the defendant 3, and Defendant 1 was the defendant 2:0 on August 19, 1975 from around 1973 to around 22:00 on August 20, 1975 from around 202:0 on April 20, 197, he was living together in Busan Dongdong-dong 303 main hotel located in Busan Dongdong-dong Do-dong 303, and the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Counseling (Presiding Judge)