(b) Calculation of taxable income in case of the final tax return due to the inclusion of depreciation in deductible expenses or the deficient depreciation;

C. Whether it goes against the principle of substantial taxation in the event of filing a final return on the inclusion of depreciation in deductible expenses or underpaid depreciation (negative)

(d) Whether the crime of evading taxes under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established in cases where insurance marginal profits disposed of as capital surplus in accordance with the financial statements rules are appropriated as miscellaneous income for tax accounting;

E. The meaning of "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

(f) Whether the proceeds from the transportation vessel of fish are subject to a business tax (affirmative);

(g) Whether the sales proceeds of the scrap metal plate generated at the time of repair of a ship owned by the company constitute a crime of tax evasion in the event that the sales proceeds are not disposed of separately (negative);

(h) Whether a domestic corporation's overseas office bears the obligation of concentration under Article 17 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act;

(i) Whether the foreign branch office of a domestic corporation falls under Article 23 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, in case where the foreign branch office of the domestic corporation has participated in the export World War from

(j) Nature of confiscation or collection under Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

(k) Whether a vessel engaged in the carriage of fish for a fee in flight constitutes an "illegal sea route business" under Article 2 of the Marine Transport Business Act (affirmative)

B. According to the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, where a domestic corporation appropriates the depreciation costs of fixed assets as deductible expenses under the Corporate Tax Act, even if the depreciation amount falls short of the permitted scope, it shall be deemed that the depreciation amount was reduced from the book value of fixed assets on the corporation’s account books and thus, it can be calculated the corporate income amount for the pertinent business year accordingly. Thus, it shall not be deemed that there is no profit that is the cause of taxation on the grounds of the reasons, such as non-taxation of the new depreciation costs or insufficient depreciation, unless the

C. In the corporate tax to be paid by self-return, where the pertinent corporation did not directly make a required depreciation or made a final return on depreciation due to underpaid amount, it cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of substantial taxation under Article 3 of the Corporate Tax Act on the ground that it did not appropriate

D. Article 26(1) and (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that a domestic corporation liable to pay taxes shall, within 15 days from the date on which the settlement of accounts for each business year is determined by the Presidential Decree, report to the Government in writing, along with the balance sheet and income statement prepared by applying mutatis mutandis the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on income in the pertinent business year and other documents as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 102 of the former Financial Statements Rules (Article 54(3) of the Financial Statements Rules No. 891 of Jun. 3, 1981), insurance marginal profits are converted into insurance money and cannot be deemed as a new corporation income. Thus, if the defendant company entered insurance marginal profits into capital in accordance with the above Financial Statements Rules and appropriated them as miscellaneous income in the tax accounting office, they constitute an amount generated by fraud or other unlawful acts, and thus, they cannot be deemed as a crime of tax evasion under Article 9-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

E. Fraud and other unlawful acts under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are acts which enable the evasion of tax, and which are generally accepted as acts that are acts of making it impossible to impose and collect tax, i.e., the deceptive scheme or other active acts making it considerably difficult to impose and collect tax, and without accompanying any other acts, do not constitute the mere failure to file a tax return under the tax law, and thus, in order to recognize the crime of tax evasion with respect to the failure to file a report on transportation income, defects compensation and delayed compensation, it shall be examined and determined as to whether there was any deceptive scheme or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult

F. If the freight income received by the carrier of the catch belonging to the defendant company during overseas navigation is not included in the business purpose of the company, even if it is not included in the business purpose of the company, it constitutes a continuous act of the same kind for profit-making purposes, which is subject to the business tax.

G. In the instant case where the proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal removed from the ship's hulls do not constitute an act of continuously the same kind for profit-making purposes, and the proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal removed from the ship's hulls do not constitute a taxable object of business taxes. Moreover, the proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal in this case where the capital equivalent to the scrap metal removed from the ship was not reduced by the defendant company, as well as the proceeds from transactions that increase the net assets of the corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, not only are new income of the defendant company, but also cannot be the gross income generated from transactions that increase the net assets of the

H. The so-called intensive obligation under Article 17 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act occurs only when the resident acquired the means of foreign payment, etc., and the foreign currency of this case is acquired by the east office of the defendant company, and the above east office constitutes a non-resident under Article 1-14(2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Regulations

(i) Article 23 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act regulates cases where a person becomes a party to the occurrence of claims between a resident and a nonresident, and thus, Article 1-14 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Article 1-14 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act shall not apply to the players of the War for Import of Catch between the defendant

(j) Confiscation and collection stipulated in Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act shall be deemed to be a countermeasure against the facts of the offense, so if there are many persons who commit the offense, the collection shall be ordered to collect the total amount of the corresponding value to all the offenders, and if one of the persons has paid the total amount of the additional collection, the other person shall be exempted from the execution of the additional collection, or if the full payment has not been made, each offender shall not be exempted from the execution of the additional collection.

(k) If a vessel which travels between fishing boats and colonies or fishing bases, etc. and transports catches and food and other supplies, etc. from an irregular time to time, and transports cargo, etc. after receiving freight at an irregular time, the frequency and route of navigation are not fixed and it constitutes an irregular port line business among the vessel operation business provided for in the Marine Transport Business Act.

1. Ground of appeal No. 1

Article 9 (1) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall provide that when the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the head of a regional tax office or the head of a tax office obtains a conviction of a crime by an investigation of a tax offense, he shall notify the taxpayer to pay the amount equivalent to a fine or a minor fine, or an amount equivalent to a collection charge of goods to be confiscated, and expenses necessary for the delivery and storage of seized articles, by specifying the reasons therefor: Provided, That if the offender is deemed to have no capacity to implement the notification, he shall immediately bring an accusation without any notification under the preceding paragraph. Paragraph (3) provides that the offender shall be punished if he is deemed to be imprisonment, and the offense under the provisions of the main sentence of Article 6 of this Act provides that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the head of a regional tax office or the head of a tax office may bring an accusation against the criminal defendant for a violation of the provisions of Article 97 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with no authority to bring an accusation against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over a tax offense, and such offense shall be punished for more than seven years.

2. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

According to each entry of the audit reports filed in the 1974 Tangible Assets Depreciation Report and the audit report, which is bound in the 1974th session of the investigation records of this case, the amount of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. not depreciation in the 1974 was KRW 2,426,240,698 or the amount of under-paid depreciation was KRW 1,561,786,563, and the profits of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. in the 1974 were KRW 437,074,392 at the original adjudication. Thus, if Defendant 2 would have done the fixed depreciation, Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. would have suffered losses rather than the settlement of the business year of this case.

According to the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, income for each business year of a domestic corporation shall be the total amount of losses which belongs or comes to belong to the relevant business year after deducting the total amount of losses from the total amount of gross income which belongs or comes to belong to the relevant business year, and deductible expenses shall mean the amount of losses incurred from transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation except for refund of capital or equities, disposal of surplus funds, and provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, while the portion of depreciation of fixed assets appropriated in each business year of the domestic corporation which exceeds the calculation under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree is included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount of the domestic corporation for each business year, but the depreciation costs shall not be counted in deductible expenses within the scope of the amount calculated according to the ratio of depreciation of fixed assets in accordance with the contents and number of taxable assets if the corporation appropriates the depreciation amount as deductible expenses, and in principle, it shall be deemed that the amount of depreciation of fixed assets of the domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act would not be included in the calculation of the income amount of the domestic corporation for 20 years.

There is no reason to discuss.

3. Ground of appeal No. 3

Article 26(1) and (2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a domestic corporation liable to pay taxes shall, within 15 days from the date on which the settlement of accounts for each business year is determined, report to the Government in writing, along with the balance sheet and income statement prepared by applying mutatis mutandis the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax on income in the business year and other documents as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 102 of the Rules on Financial Statements (current Notice No. 891 of June 3, 1981; subparagraph 3 of Article 54 of the Rules on Financial Statements) provides that insurance marginal profits shall be treated as capital surplus. This means that insurance marginal profits are originally converted into insurance money and cannot be deemed a new corporate income, so it is clear that such profits have the nature of capital stock and shall be treated as capital surplus.

However, the judgment below rejected Defendant 2’s assertion that the insurance gain is appropriated as miscellaneous income under the Corporate Tax Act, and the so-called unrealized insurance money is appropriated as miscellaneous income in 1974, which is the business year in which the ownership of profits and losses of Defendant 2 was determined, as well as the so-called unrealized insurance money is appropriated as miscellaneous income in 1974, which is all legitimate measures in calculating income under the Corporate Tax Act, and if Defendant 2’s insurance gain amount of 437,074,392 as stated in the indictment of this case includes 169,164,820, total gains on insurance gain calculated as unrealized profits, and 96,964,879,704, which is the total gains on insurance gain calculated as unrealized profits, the court below rejected Defendant 2’s assertion that it should be deducted because it is not clear that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles on the above gains on insurance, and thus, it can be viewed as miscellaneous income and other tax evasion under Article 9-2 of the Punishment of Tax Punishment Act.

4. Ground of appeal No. 5

원심이 인용한 제1심 판결에 의하면, 원심은 피고인 1과 2주식회사가 (가) 1974.1.1부터 같은해 12.31까지 사이에 피고인 2주식회사 동경사무소에서 제1심 판결 별첨 제1목록 기재와 같이 피고인 2 주식 회사 소속 운반선 칠보산호의 운반수입금 합계 금 182,342,013원(미화 208,029달라47센트 일화 78,974,820엥) 및 그에 따른 운항경비계 금 130,024,576원을 기장하지 않고 결산에서 누락시켜 그 사실을 숨겨 관할 종로세무서에 신고함으로써 운임수입에서 운항경비를 공제한 위 기간 중의 법인소득금 금 52,317,437원에 법인세 금 20,926,974원 및 같은해 7.1부터 같은해 12.31까지의 운임수입금금 85,995,529원(미화 83,385달라5센트, 일화 43,885,292엥)에 대한 영업세 금 859,955원을 포탈하고 (나) 1975.1.1부터 같은해 12.31까지 사이에 피고인 2주식회사 동경사무소에서 제1심 판결 별첨 제2목록기재와 같이 위 칠보산호의 운임수입금합계 금 282,529,956원(미화 60,851달라66센트, 일화 159,318,801엥)을 위 전항과 같은 방법으로 관할 종로세무서에 신고누락하여 그에 대한 소정의 영업세 금 4,237,949원을 포탈하고 (다) 1974.1.1부터 같은해 12.31까지 사이에 피고인 2 주식 회사 동경사무실에서 어선건조와 관련하여 일본 하야시가네조선소로부터 하자보상금 및 지체보상금등 명목으로 받은 총계 금 103,032,557원을 수입금으로 기장하지 않고 결산에서 누락시켜 그 사실을 숨기고 관할 종로세무서에 신고함으로써 그에 대한 법인세 금 41,213,022원을 포탈한 사실 등을 확정하였다.

Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who evades a tax, obtains a tax refund or deduction by deceit or other unlawful acts shall be punished in accordance with the classification under each of the following subparagraphs, and Article 13 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that a person who intentionally neglects or makes a false report or notification in filing a tax return or notification under the Act shall be punished. Thus, the above act of fraud or other unlawful acts referred to in Article 9 refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act which makes it difficult to impose and collect a tax impossible or considerably difficult under the generally accepted social norms, and it does not constitute a mere failure to report under the tax law without accompanying any other act (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do4078, May 10, 197; Supreme Court Decision 78Do2784, Dec. 13, 1978; 80Do321, Jan. 26, 1982, etc.).

Therefore, in order to recognize the crime of tax evasion with respect to the transportation revenue, defect compensation, and delay compensation by the above defendant 2 corporation, the court below should have deliberated and judged on how they were processed on the account books (whether or not the captain has failed to make a prior entry or made a false disposition of losses although he did not make a false entry or made a false disposition of losses) and on what deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, but the court below's decision that recognized the crime of tax evasion solely on the mere omission of entry and omission of a report is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of tax evasion and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The arguments are with merit.

5. Ground of appeal Nos. 6 and 7

원심이 유지한 제1심 판결은, 그 이유 제1의 1의 나, 다, 마, 제2의 1의 가, 나로 피고인 1 및 피고인 2주식회사는 그 대표이사인 피고인 1이 피고인의 업무에 관하여 1974.1.1 부터 동년 12.31까지 사이에 피고인 2주식회사 동경사무소에서 동회사 소속 운반선 칠보산호가 별지 제1목록(제1심 판결 별첨) 기재와 같이 외국운항시 화물을 운송하고 받은 운임수입금 도합 금 182,342,013원(미화 208,029달러 47센트, 일화 78,974,820엥)및 그에 따른 운항경비 도합 130,024,576원을 기장하지 않고 결산에서 누락시켜 그 사실을 숨기고 관할 종로세무서에 신고함으로써 운임수입에서 운항경비를 공제한 위 기간 중의 법인소득 금 52,317,437원에 대한 법인세 20,926,974원 및 동년 7.1부터 동년 12.31까지의 해당 운임수입금 85,995,529원(미화83,385달러 5센트, 일화 43,885,292엥)에 대한 영업세 859,955원을 포탈하고1975.1.1부터 동년 12.31까지 사이에 피고인 2 주식 회사 동경사무소에서 별지 제2목록(제1심 판결 별첨)기재와 같이 위 칠보산호가 화물을 운송하고 받은 운임수입금도합 282,529,956원(미화 60,851달러66센트, 일화 159,318,801엥)을 위와 같은 방법으로 관할 종로세무소에 신고누락하여 그에 대한 소정의 영업세 4,237,949원을 포탈하고 1974.9. 하순 일자불상경 부산시 중구 충무동5가 소재 피고인 2 주식 회사 사무실에서 동 회사의 공모선유신호 수리시에 발생한 고철판 2,300톤을 대금 124,629,900원에 판매한 후 이를 1974.1.1부터 동년 12.31까지의 피고인 2 주식 회사 익금으로 기장하지 않고 같은 방법으로 관할 종로세무서에 신고누락하여 소정의 법인세 49,851,960원 및 영업세 1,246,299원을 포탈한 사실 등을 확정하고 있는바 위 운반선 수입에 관하여는 비록 그것이 피고인 2 주식 회사의 업무목적에는 포함되어 있지 아니한 것이라고 하더라도 그 기간 중 10여 차례 반복된 행위로서 영업세법에서 말하는 영업세 과세대상이 되는 영리를 목적으로 계속적으로 동종의 행위를 하는 것에 해당하는 것이라고 할 것이며, 이 운반선 수입이 영업세 면제대상이 되는 외화를 획득하는 수출, 군납, 용역 및 관광영업과 기타 대통령령이 정하는 외화획득영업에 해당한다고 하더라도 영업세법이 정하는 바에 따라 면제신청을 하지 않았다면 영업세가 면제될 수 없으므로 이점 이와 같은 취지의 원심조치는 정당하여 이에 영업세법에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

On the other hand, according to the court below's legal determination, the price for the repair of the scrap metal is the price for the sale of the scrap metal removed from the ship when accepting the competitive wire signal, and it does not constitute the same kind of act that continues to be for profit, and thus it does not constitute the object of business tax. In this case, there is no fact that the capital equivalent to the scrap metal removed from the ship was reduced from Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., the price for the disposal of the scrap metal in this case cannot be the gross income generated from the transaction that increases the net assets of the corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, as well as from the fact that the disposal of the scrap metal in this case cannot be regarded as the crime of evading corporate tax immediately because it did not be treated as the gross income. In this regard, the court below's decision did not constitute the crime of evading corporate tax, since it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Business Tax Act and the Corporate Tax Act, and therefore there is a ground for appeal.

6. Ground of appeal No. 8

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below acknowledged that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's stock company evaded the petroleum tax of KRW 20,315,826 won between December 4, 1974 and December 12 of the same year, and the amount of KRW 7,827,120 as petroleum tax between January 10, 1975 and February 1 of the same year. However, according to the reasoning of the court below's decision that the court below did not dismiss the materials and testimony of the witness Cho Won-hee, the "KORM" (KOM) was a joint venture company of the U.S. company holding 70 pro rata stocks, and that the court below exempted the above petroleum tax of KRW 20,315,826 won and KRW 7,827,120 from July 5, 1976. The court below acknowledged that the above petroleum products were exported to the Republic of Korea by using the aforementioned legal principles as foreign currency-free petroleum products in violation of the domestic tax law.

7. Ground of appeal No. 9

원심은 제1심이 적법하게 조사하여 채택한 여러증거들을 기록에 비추어 종합검토하면, 피고인 2주식회사가 운반선 수입등 외화를 국내, 외국환은행에 등록하지 아니한 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있다고 하여 피고인 1과 같은 피고인 2 주식주식회사가 1972.1.27부터 1976.6.30까지 사이에 피고인 2 주식 회사 사무실에서 별지 제4목록(제1심 판결 별첨)기재와 같이 동 회사 소유운반선 칠보산호가 외 국화물을 운송하고 받은 운임수입금 및 그에 대한 은행이자 수입금등 미화 321,010달러30센트, 일화 597,387,307엥과 1973.1.17부터 1975.12.31까지 사이에 일본국에서 수령한 선박피해보상금 일화 120,000,000엥,어선건조와 관련하여 수령한 하자 보상금등 일화 131,638,360엥등 도합 미화 321,010달러30센트와 일화 849,025,667엥을 취득하였음에도 불구하고 국내 외국환은행에 이를 등록하지 아니한 사실을 인정하고 이에 대하여 외국환관리법 제17조 를 적용한 제1심 조치를 지지하였다.

However, the so-called intensive obligation under Article 17 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act arises only when a resident acquires means of foreign payment, etc., and according to the facts that the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, the foreign currency of this case is that both the freight income and the bank's income, the income, the compensation for ship damage, and the compensation for defects, etc. have been acquired by the east office of the 24th east-si in Japan under Article 1-14 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, which is the non-resident of the above east-si in the east-si 24th east-si in the east-si, the above east-si office did not have any intensive obligation and the defendant did not have any intensive obligation since it did not acquire it. Accordingly, the facts of the prosecuted crime of this case did not focus foreign currency collected by the defendant, etc. without delay, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to foreign currency and did not have any ground for the decision of the court below.

8. Ground of appeal No. 10

원심판결 이유 기재에 의하면, 원심은 피고인 1과 같은 2주식회사가 1973.1.17부터 1976.6.30까지 사이에 제1심 판결 별첨 제1목록 외환명세표 기재와 같이 재무부장관의 허가없이 일본국 무역상사인 마루베니(환홍), 도쇼꾸(동식)등 회사와 소미도모(주우)은행, 도오꼬오(동경)은행 등으로부터 미화 7,584,974달러88센트와 일화 472,995,681엥을 차입하여 거주자인 피고인 2주식회사와 비거주자인 위 회사 및 은행 등과의 사이에 채권발생의 당사자가 된 사실을 인정하고 이에 대하여 외국환관리법 제35조 제1항 , 제23조 제2호 를 적용하였다.

In light of the records, this foreign currency is a loan confirmed by the court below and received at the above east Office as the advance of the export world of the catch sold by Defendant 2's fishing vessel in the form of direct export through Defendant 2's east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east east, and since the foreign exchange management regulation regulates the cases where a resident becomes a party to the claim occurrence between the resident and the non-resident, the player of the export war of the above east east east east east east 2, the non-resident of the above east east east east east east east east office, and according to Article 9-3 (1) 5 of the above foreign exchange management regulation, it is clear that the approval method like the above east east east

9. Ground of appeal No. 11

According to the judgment below, the court below collected 240,000,000 won from Defendant 1 by applying the latter part of Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

외국환관리법 제36조의 2 는 전 2조의 경우에는 범인이 당해 행위로 인하여 취득한 외국환 및 기타 증권, 귀금속, 부동산, 채권을 화체하는 서류와 내국지급수단은 몰수하며 이를 몰수할 수 없을 때에는 그 가액을 추징한다고 규정하고 있는바 이 규정의 취지에 비추어 외국환관리법상의 몰수와 추징은 그 범칙사실에 대한 응징적 제재라고 할 것이므로 범칙자가 여러 사람이 있는 경우에는 그 추징은 각 범칙자 전원에 대하여 그 가액 전액의 추징을 명하여야 할 것이며 이중 한 사람이 추징금 전부를 납부하였을 때에는 다른 사람은 추징의 집행을 면할 것이나 전부납부가 되지 못하였을 때에는 각 범칙자는 추징의 집행을 면할 수 없는 것이라고 풀이 할 것이므로 비록 직접 피고인이 취득하는 외화가 없다고 하더라도 채권을 화체하는 서류와 내국 지급수단이 몰수의 대상이 되며 몰수할 수 없을 때에는 그 가액을 추징할 수 있을 것이나 한편 원심판시 외국환관리법위반 범칙외환은 미화가 총 8,175,985달러18센트, 일화가총1,324,021,048엥임이 명백한데 어떠한 근거와 계산에서 금 240,000,000원을 피고인으로부터 추징한 것인지 아무런 설시가 없으므로 원심판결에는 이 점에서 심리미진과 이유불비의 위법이 있다고 하지 않을 수 없다.

There are also reasons for this issue.

10. Ground of appeal No. 12

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, without obtaining a license from the Minister of Construction and Transportation, transported the cargo from January 1, 1974 to June 30, 197 by using five shipping lines owned by the same company from the same company to Japan, Spanish, and privately placed, and operated the shipping business by transporting the cargo from the same company to the Japanese, Spanish, and so on, applying Articles 23 subparagraph 1 and 3 (1) of the Maritime Transport Business Act. Since the Maritime Transport Business Act has several provisions concerning maritime transportation business for the purpose of maintaining the order of maritime transportation and promoting the sound development of maritime transportation business, and divided the maritime transportation business into the maritime transportation business and the maritime transportation incidental business, and divided the maritime transportation business into an irregular one, non-scheduled one into a regular one and non-scheduled one, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above maritime transportation vessel between the above defendant 2 and the above cargo delivery vessel and the cargo delivery vessel.

11. Ground of appeal No. 13

According to the records, it is argued that the part concerning the omission of corporate tax by the first instance court's decision 1-4 and the part concerning the omission of corporate tax by the first instance court's decision 1-5 as to the omission of corporate tax by the first instance court's decision 1-4 and the first-5 of the first instance court's decision does not constitute a crime under subparagraph 1 of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as to the part concerning the omission of corporate tax by the first instance court's decision 15 (No. 2. 1252 of the trial records). The purport of this assertion is that the time of the direct omission of corporate tax like the corporate tax in this case is the time of the expiration of the payment period and the liability for tax payment was only due to the government's decision or investigation, and that the arrest of the defendant before the investigation and decision constitutes a crime of tax evasion by the provisions of Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act before the occurrence of the violation, and that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the omission of tax liability in this case 3.

12. Ground of appeal No. 14

Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who evades taxes or obtains a refund or deduction of taxes by deceit or other unlawful acts shall be punished again, and Article 13 subparagraph 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who intentionally neglects or makes a false report or notification with respect to a report under the Act shall be punished. Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to an act which is recognized as unlawful by social norms as an active act such as deception which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, i.e., acts which make it possible to evade taxes, and does not constitute such unlawful acts. The first instance court ruling cited in the above Article 5 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not constitute such unlawful acts. According to the facts established by the court below, from July 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974; Article 13 subparagraph 4 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who evades taxes or obtains a false tax refund or deduction; Article 9 of the said Act provides that a person who evades taxes or makes a false report or other unlawful acts.

However, according to the facts at the time of the above original judgment, there is no doubt as to which active act by the defendant underreporting the sales and inventory amount, etc., and even if it was found that there was an omission of the tax by social norms, and there is no trace of the investigation or deliberation on this point even through the records, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on fraud and other unlawful acts as stipulated in Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The arguments are with merit.

13. Ultimately, the appeal of this case is without merit as to the freight receipts of the shipping line Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12 in the grounds of appeal, and as to the freight receipts of the shipping line No. 6 in the grounds of appeal No. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 in the grounds of appeal, and all of the grounds of appeal No. 6 in the grounds of appeal are justified. Since the facts charged are prosecuted for concurrent crimes, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)