1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the term “Fraud or other unlawful act” in the crime of evading tax under Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”) refers to the act of enabling the Defendant to evade tax, i.e., a deceptive scheme which makes the imposition and collection of tax impossible or considerably difficult, or other active act which is considered unlawful by social norms.

Therefore, even though it does not constitute mere failure to report under tax law or making a false report without accompanying other acts, in cases where the circumstance where active concealment intention appears, such as failure to report or underreporting the taxable object and intentional omission of import or sale in the account book, etc., it can be recognized that the imposition and collection of taxes are impossible or remarkably difficult.

I would like to say.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, whether active concealment is objectively revealed should be determined based on whether the pertinent tax return method is a tax return method or a tax imposition method, the developments leading up to a failure to report or a false tax return, the degree different from the specific details and facts in the case of a false tax return, the method leading up to the falsehood of false documents, and the function of the document related to the calculation of the tax base, in cases where a false document is submitted, the determination should be made based on whether the relevant document can be recognized as unlawful under social norms, in full view of all the circumstances, including the following: (a) whether the method of determining the relevant tax amount is a tax return method; (b) whether the method of determining whether the pertinent document was falsely prepared

The judgment below

The first instance court and the lower court duly adopted.