Defendant 3’s ground of appeal shall include one hundred five days, out of the number of days pending trial, in the principal sentence.

In calculating the recovery of arrears as prescribed in Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, even if a collection officer's intentional or negligent notice of tax payment was given in two or more installments due to the same item of tax imposed on the same person by intention or negligence, the calculation of the recovery of arrears in the application of Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be considered as one default in the calculation of the amount of tax in arrears. Thus, the judgment based on the above opinion cannot be adopted properly and discussed.

As to the ground of appeal No. 2

As to the facts charged of public conflicts against Defendant 2, in the judgment of innocence, joint Defendant 1 stated that he was threatened with the threat that he would enter the same as Defendant 2 if he did not directly take flight expenses from Defendant 2, from the prosecution investigation process to the court of first instance. In the judgment of the court of first instance, he did not directly take the words of threat, but he did not directly take the words of threat, and he would not go again if he did not give money through the non-indicted 2. In addition, in the court of first instance, although the court of first instance threatened the investigative authority with the threat that he would bring an accusation, the court of first instance did not go against it, but did not go through the same and even if it did not go against it, it is difficult to know whether he did not go back to the court of first instance with the threat of Defendant 2, and it is likely that he would eventually go back to the failure of inheritance tax evasion plan, and thus, he could bring about a criminal case with Defendant 1.5 million won compensation.

However, even if the prosecutor's statement made by the above defendant 1 until the original court in the past, there is a little difference in his expression, it cannot be said that his statement is not consistent to the extent of credibility, and even if the threat he received from the defendant 2 was made through the operation of the non-indicted 2, it can be interpreted that he was threatened by the defendant 2. In addition, if the inheritance tax is reduced to 1.5 million won in the court of first instance, it is apparent that the inheritance tax should be adjusted together by two Rotans and the escape should not be taken together, and if he pays 3.5 million won, he would inform the investigative authority that his inherited property is benefiting.

Defendant 2’s threat attitude is not a mixture of agricultural fences, but a combination of agricultural fences. However, even though the money was written as 5 million won, it is not equivalent to the water expense, and Defendant 2’s threat attitude is not a mixture of agricultural fences, but it cannot be said that the contents of the threat are unclear. Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 2’s threat would cause an external appearance into Defendant 2’s threat and a gold equivalent to five million won. Defendant 1 finally returned to Defendant 2’s failure, such as the explanation of the original reason, even though it was difficult to accept that the inheritance tax evasion plan was finally made as 5 million won, it is difficult to accept the payment of the money with the expenses of making it difficult to accept, as seen above, even though it is difficult to accept that it was a matter of common understanding, and therefore, it is difficult to reverse the part of the judgment of conviction against Defendant 2.

As to Defendant 3’s defense counsel and Defendant 4’s grounds of appeal:

The determination of the evidence is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, and it cannot be recognized that there is no error in the fact-finding in the establishment of each crime in the theory of the original judgment in the party's own trial in the party's own case, and the arguments eventually result in the misunderstanding of facts, and it cannot be adopted in this case.

Therefore, according to Articles 390, 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 57 of the Criminal Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Rin- Port (Presiding Justice)