[2] Whether the crime of corporate tax evasion is established in a case where a false entry of the borrowed-name shares, which are non-financial assets, is made in the corporate account and the corresponding cash is made as a purchase price, and where the borrowed-name shares are deposited and managed in the borrowed-name account, which is a non-financial asset management account

[3] The number of crimes of corporate tax evasion and the scope of the effect of accusation against part of the crimes

[4] The case holding that the effect of the accusation against the primary charged facts extends to the primary charged facts that are related to the crime

[2] Even if a corporation’s assets, such as borrowed-name stocks, etc., previously owned by it, were included in the corporate accounting book only during the pertinent business year, and then withdrawn money by means of accounting as if it were newly purchased in the pertinent business year and deposited into a corporate non-fund management account, and thereby leaked cash assets, the outflow of cash assets does not affect any income that is the corporate tax base for the pertinent business year, and thus does not constitute evasion of corporate tax for the pertinent business year.

[3] Since corporate tax takes a business year as a taxable period, the crime of evasion is established in each business year, and the prosecution and accusation against part of the crime in the relationship of a single crime extends to the whole of the crime.

[4] The case holding that the effect of the accusation against the primary charged facts extends to the primary charged facts that are related to the crime

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Part concerning the evasion of corporate tax with respect to the trade of nautical miles stocks

Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which are the aggravated provision thereof, shall be punished by a person who evades a tax, such as corporate tax, by fraud or other unlawful acts. Article 14 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "income for each business year of a domestic corporation, which is the basis of calculating the corporate tax base, shall be the total amount of earnings for the business year minus the total amount of losses belonging to the business year." Article 40 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the business year of accrual of earnings and losses of a domestic corporation for each business year shall be the business year which includes the date on which the concerned earnings and losses are determined. In full view of each of the above provisions, the corporate tax shall be the corporate tax imposed on the corporation's income, that is, the corporate income tax, and the income which serves as the corporate tax base for each business year is calculated on the basis of the unit of each business year. Thus, in order to have evaded a corporate tax for a specific business year by fraud or other unlawful acts, it

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as follows. Defendant 1's daily newspaper company included 390,000 nautical miles stocks in the accounting book of the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company for the business year 1997, which had been held in the name of tea from before the business year 1997, and included 390,000 nautical miles stocks in the accounting book of the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company for the business year 197, and then completed the contract as if he newly purchased the 2.34,000,000 won in the year, and withdraws money by means of preparing a false sales contract as if he paid the price, and then deposited the cash assets in the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company's non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1 daily newspaper account book. However, it did not affect the corporate tax base of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of income and corporate tax evasion as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(b) the portion exceeding 12,88,917 won in respect of the omission of appropriation of interest;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that even if the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1

In light of the relevant laws and records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deduction of income tax withheld as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. Part on changes in indictment

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the prosecutor charged the Defendants with the evasion of corporate tax for the business year 1997 and the corporate tax for the business year 199 among the charges of this case against the Defendants, but the appellate court changed the portion of the corporate tax for the business year 1997 among the charges of this case to the corporate tax evasion for the business year of 1999, and the conjunctive daily newspaper for the business year of 1999, and added "the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 1's disposal loss at the time of sale of the above shares were excessive and the defendant evaded corporate tax of 1920,000 won for the year 1999." After recognizing that the court approved this, the court below stated that the defendant's defense counsel's assertion that the conjunctive charges of this case are not identical to the primary charges of this case, so it should not be allowed to add the charges of this case to the ancillary charges of this case, and therefore the prosecution procedure for the evasion of corporate tax for the business year of this case constitutes the preliminary charges of this case.

In light of the relevant laws and records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the modification of indictment and the validity of accusation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Violation of withholding duty

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts as follows. The amount paid by the main daily newspaper company to the non-indicted 1 to the non-indicted 2 for living expenses despite the non-indicted 2 could not immediately commence work due to the reasons on the part of the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company falls under the "compensation" under Article 21 (1) 17 of the Income Tax Act, and the amount paid by the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company to the non-indicted 2 for the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company to the non-indicted 6 person, such as the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company, who was working in the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company and again retired from the company after the retirement to the non-indicted 2. The court below decided that the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company promised to pay the above employees at the time of retirement and the retirement from the company to the non-indicted 1 daily newspaper company, which was paid in accordance with the above promise (the salary paid by the non-indicted 1's retirement income tax withholding obligation, and it did not violate the law and the record.

C. The destruction of accounting books for the purpose of destroying evidence

Examining the evidence specified in the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that there was a criminal intent to destroy the above books for the purpose of destroying evidence for the purpose of tax evasion at the time of destroying the accounting books and documentary evidence for the purpose of tax evasion, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ko Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)