1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 3:

According to the records of this case, since from around 1967, the defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale business of 198, radio, television programmes, and wooden households, separately from the above individual company, the defendant established a non-indicted 1 stock company at the same place on July 1, 1974, and sold ion axis, radio, television programmes, and wooden households as the representative director. The defendant resigned from the representative director of the above company on June 20, 197, and the defendant was appointed as the representative director, but the defendant was in substantial company as the owner of the above individual company, and the resignation of the representative director of the non-indicted 1 stock company was in progress to temporarily avoid the tax evasion suspicion in the above two companies. Thus, it is recognized that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the provisions of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as well as the provisions of Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

As stated in Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the term "fraud and other unlawful acts" means fraudulent and other active acts that make it impossible or difficult to impose and collect taxes, and the mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law without accompanying any other acts does not constitute illegal acts. However, according to the records, it is recognized that the facts of tax evasion in the original trial are based on active acts, etc. which are recognized as unlawful by social norms that enable the tax evasion by guiding the tax office to collect the delivery certificate properly issued, suspend tax payment, and notify the tax payment to each business office, and submitting a false delivery certificate to the tax office. Thus, the court below's decision that applied Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to the defendant's tax evasion act is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is not appropriate for the case of this case because the precedents of the acceptance of the lawsuit are different.

3. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)