[조세범처벌법위반][공1974.4.15.(486),7785]
If a tax official’s immediate accusation against a tax offense case does not specify the grounds for accusation, whether such accusation is null and void.
In making an immediate accusation under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it shall not be null and void even if the reason for accusation is not specified in the written accusation.
Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 8 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment
Magjin Transportation Corporation
Prosecutor
Daejeon District Court Decision 72No398 delivered on September 19, 1973
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.
The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.
The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows. After the investigation was conducted on September 6, 1971 on the suspicion of evasion of traffic tax, etc. on the defendant corporation by intelligence, the Chungcheongnam-do Police Bureau found the same facts as the contents of the prosecution of this case, and found the facts of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and requested the head of Daejeon Tax Office to make an immediate accusation against the defendant corporation, and requested the same person to make an immediate accusation against the defendant corporation and received an immediate accusation from the same person of the Daejeon Tax Office without any investigation on the criminal case, and concluded that the immediate accusation of the Daejeon Tax Office did not meet the requirements of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act,
However, when filing an immediate accusation under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it is interpreted that a tax official entrusts a tax official with the authority to recognize the existence of a special reason for the purpose of having the tax official take a disposition of his term of office (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Ma883, Jan. 11, 1962). Thus, if a relevant tax official makes an immediate accusation against a tax offense case, the requirements for prosecution are satisfied. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the court is only required to judge the principal case, and it is not possible to examine the grounds for immediate accusation. On the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the immediate accusation is null and void on the grounds that it is unlawful, by misapprehending the legal principles of immediate accusation, and thus, it cannot be said that a tax official violated the above precedents.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)