[조세범처벌법위반][미간행]
[1] Whether a local tax offense constitutes a crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act immediately because of the provisions of Article 84(1) of the former Local Tax Act stipulating that "the provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders shall apply mutatis mutandis to the local tax offense (negative)
[2] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which applied only Article 10 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is erroneous in applying the law and the name of the crime in the case where "the defendant failed to pay local taxes more than ten times in the fiscal year of 2004 and more than nine times in the fiscal year of 2005 without good cause"
[1] Article 84(1) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; see current Article 134(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes); Article 2 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); / [2] Article 84(1) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; see current Article 134(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes); Article 10 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; Amended by Act No. 9919)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7561 Decided March 27, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 635)
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2010No837 decided June 29, 2010
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.
The judgment on the grounds of appeal shall be made ex officio.
Article 2 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 919, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that "the term "tax" in this Act means the national tax: Provided, That this shall not apply to customs duties; and the former part of Article 84 (1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that "the provisions of the former Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the punishment of tax offenses with respect to local tax for legislative convenience." Thus, the former part of Article 84 (1) of the former Local Tax Act provides that "the provisions of the former Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the punishment of offenses concerning local tax by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with respect to local tax for the sake of legislative convenience. Therefore, the above provisions do not immediately constitute a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act,
Nevertheless, the lower court maintained the first instance court, which applied only Article 10 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) to the facts charged in this case that “the Defendant failed to pay KRW 29,60,600, totaling KRW 17,142,860, and KRW 12,464,740, including license tax, etc., nine times in the fiscal year of 2005, on ten occasions in the fiscal year of 2004 without justifiable grounds.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the law and the name of the crime.
Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)