Housing Sung-nam City

Reference domicile:

Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-sik

Law Firm Sejong

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Park Jin-ho, Lee Jong-ho, Lee Dong-young

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 10,000,000 won into one day.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine by provisional payment.

The defendant is a person who operated 000 000 000 0000 000 000 000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.

When the Defendant reports the import of hospital because of a large debt of 00 above, he reported only the portion of the above Park 00 and the portion of the medical expenses paid by credit card to the tax office with the remaining 00 items that are likely to be deducted all creditors of the above Park 00. The portion of the cash payment to be paid in cash was not reported to the tax office. From the patients who want to pay in cash in cash in order to prevent the source of cash payment from being traced from the tax office, the Defendant’s bank account in the name of 00, and the above 00, Kim 00, an employee of the above 00,000.

1. Points of evading income tax, 2005;

On January 2006, the Defendant requested 100 YO (tax return agency) who is an employee of 315,680,000 tax accountant office (tax return agency) who is well aware of the fact to report income tax in 2005. While operating 000 won in 2005, the Defendant only provided 315,680,000 won for medical expenses paid in cash by credit card except for materials on 1,480,770,000 won for medical expenses paid in cash from the patient.

Accordingly, on the basis of the above credit card payment data, the above yellow 00 won was re-written in the account book for the income tax return of KRW 000,000 based on only the above credit card payment data, and on June 1, 2006, on the basis of the newly established account book in Gangnam-gu, Seoul District Court reported the total amount of KRW 000,000 in KRW 315,680,000.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the above gambling00, evaded the income tax of 514,273,834 won in 2005 by fraud or other unlawful act.

2. Points of evasion of income tax, 206;

On October 2006, at the office of 000 won, the Defendant requested the 1,821,050 Won to report the income tax in 2006 at the above office, and only 1,821,050,000 won, except for the above materials about 000 won in cash during the operation of the 2,612,530 won in 2006.

Accordingly, on the basis of the above credit card payment data, the above Yellow 00 re-written account books for the above 000 won income tax return, and on May 31, 2007, on the basis of the newly prepared account books, around Gangnamnam Tax Office reported the total amount of KRW 1,821,050 in 206 to KRW 1,821,050 in 200. Accordingly, in collusion with the above 00, the Defendant evaded the above 1,010,525,348 won in 206 by fraud or other unlawful act in collusion with the above 00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution concerning 00;

1. Statement of each prosecutor's office in relation to Ma 00, Ma 00, and Ma 00;

1. Tax-reported data, such as a written accusation, a statement of evaded tax amount, etc., 3) revenue list, a statement of withdrawal of passbook, and a statement of withdrawal of passbook by date, an operation account book by date, each entry into passbook 4), a final return on tax base, a final return on tax base, and an invoice for tax return, such as an invoice, a final return on tax base, and an invoice for tax return (date 1, 2006), and a ledger of each account;

1. Investigation report (componating details of business closure report of 000 won), investigation report (componating reference materials, such as the same business contract), investigation report (200 court rulings and bound indictments), investigation report (Confirmation of grounds for suspension of detention in 00), investigation report (Confirmation of grounds for suspension of detention in 200), and investigation report (to listen to the telephone statement of a nurse in charge of the Korea Forest University in charge of the Korea Forest University in relation to the progress of 00 treatment of suspects

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. The point of evasion of income tax in 2005

Article 8(1)2 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 9(1)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 8138, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [Provided, That the upper limit of imprisonment shall be 15 years prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act; hereinafter the same shall apply]

B. The point of evasion of income tax in 2006

Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 9(1)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 8829, Dec. 31, 2007); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (limited to the choice of imprisonment, but the maximum of imprisonment shall be 15 years prescribed by the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8 and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act; and the fine shall be imposed concurrently as necessary)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part) and Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act / [Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act / Imprisonment with prison labor prescribed for a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax Taxes) due to the evasion of income tax in 2006 with heavier punishment: Provided, That with respect to each fine concurrently imposed as necessary, the application of the provisions concerning the restriction on the concurrence of fines among Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act shall be excluded pursuant to Article 4

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 5 Grounds for Sentencing

1. Status of the criminal defendant at a meeting of 000 won;

(5) From around 00 to around 00 00, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, i.e., (1) 00 won was opened at 00 dong Seoul, but the hospital operation cost was short of hospital operation cost, (200,000 won was loaned from the defendant around March 2005 to 00, and the defendant requested the management and accounting of 00 won from around 000 won, and (2) the above hospital operation fund loaned to 00 to 00 won was entered into by the defendant's 000 won, and (3) the above 000 won was entered into with the defendant's 00 won investment contract, and (4) the above hospital operation fund loaned to 00 won was written by 00 won, and (3) the above 000 won was written with the defendant's 00 won investment contract, and (4) the defendant's 000 won was written with the above 000 won investment contract.

2. The operational status of 000 won; and

As the Defendant started to conduct a club business for Park 00 and 000 won, the Defendant agreed to provide medical treatment to the patients, and the Defendant agreed to take full charge of the management of the staff and the fund management of 000 won, and accordingly, the Defendant managed all the revenue of 000 won. In fact, Park 00 won was unaware of the details of the specific revenue and expenditure of 000 won, and Park 00, Cho 00 and Cho 00 received only the money that the Defendant transferred to the account or received directly from the account, and the Defendant did not know about the amount of the actual revenue of 000 won).

3. Main agents to commit the instant crime;

Each evidence and any of the following circumstances found to be considered in full view of the operational status of 000 Won;

① In other words, only the Defendant was aware of the accurate revenue and expenditure of KRW 000, ② Before the Defendant was in charge of the finance and accounting of KRW 000,000, the Defendant did not receive operating expenses, etc. using a borrowed account. However, as the Defendant was in charge of the finance and accounting of KRW 000, the Defendant was deposited with operating expenses through a borrowed account in the name of the employee or the Defendant’s denial of the Defendant’s name (14), ③ the yellow 00, when the Defendant was in charge of the income tax return in 2005, on behalf of the Defendant in the investigative agency, was not requested for tax return except for the Defendant in the process of acting as an agent for the income tax return at the investigative agency, and it is reasonable to deem that the instant crime was committed under the Defendant’s initiative.

4. Profits earned by the defendant through the crime of this case

Park 00 stated at the investigative agency that the defendant was already liable for all debts of 400,00,000,000 won, and that the profits earned by the defendant amount to 1,50,000,000 won, and that the profits earned by the defendant amount to 1,50,000,000 won, and 17). However, even if the defendant's above statement was exaggerated about the profits earned by 000 won, the defendant appears to have received a considerable amount of the claim against 00 won existing, and the amount equivalent to the operating expenses deposited in the account under the name of 18) of 000 won and the defendant's employee and the defendant's non-exclusive account was transferred to the defendant's personal account, it is reasonable to view that the above profits were included in the profits accrued from the crime of this case.

5. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant’s act of tax evasion, etc. by means of reducing sales of KRW 000 by using a borrowed-name account, is intelligent, thereby causing severe damage to the national tax justice. As seen earlier, the Defendant is a partner of Park 00, which operates KRW 000 with KRW 000,000 with KRW 6,000,000 with KRW 7,000 with KRW 7,000 with KRW 20,000 with the tax evasion amount paid out of the instant tax evasion amount, and above all, considering the fact that the Defendant led the instant criminal act, and that there are no many gains acquired through the instant criminal act, the Defendant appears to have led to the instant criminal act.

There is no choice but to sentence punishment.

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided in depth, and the person liable to pay the evaded tax amount of this case is not the defendant but the person liable to pay the evaded tax amount of this case, and that the person who is the defendant's will appeal the defendant's wife, the punishment shall be sentenced by discretionary mitigation.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

① The Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in its holding, in collusion with Park 00 as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, evades an amount equivalent to KRW 3,556,166 of the tax year 200-200 by fraud or other unlawful act (= KRW 517,830,00 as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in its holding - KRW 514,273,834 as indicated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in its holding, and ② Along with paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in its holding, the Defendant evaded 14,34,652 won for the year 2006 (= KRW 1,024,870,00 as indicated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in its holding - KRW 1,010,525,348) as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in its holding.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel paid approximately KRW 13,380,00 for the year 200 to the patient approximately KRW 340,00 for the year 206, and approximately KRW 340,000 for the year 2006. This part is reasonable to deduct the amount of income that serves as the basis for calculating the amount of evasion of income tax for each year from the amount of income that serves as the basis for calculating the amount of evasion of income tax for each year. However, the Defendant and his defense counsel sought to take into account only the circumstances favorable to the Defendant for the close of the first instance trial procedure as soon as possible.

2) However, there is no doubt that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the amount of evaded tax, including business income and necessary expenses, according to the principle of burden of proof under the Criminal Procedure Act, and in the event that the prosecutor lacks the burden of proving the amount of evaded tax in light of evidence relations, the defendant shall be acquitted on the portion of the amount of evaded tax which lacks the burden of proof: Provided, That in light of the fact that the necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts causing it are located within the control area of the taxpayer, and thus the burden of proof is easy to prove, it is necessary to determine the absence of necessary expenses (Supreme Court Decision 86Nu121 delivered on May 24, 198). This is the same as in the criminal procedure (Supreme Court Decision 94Do759 delivered on June 28, 1994). As seen earlier, so long as the defendant has been actually in charge of filing a tax return, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer of the income tax of this case is the defendant.

B. Compensation for damages not attributable to the time of attribution of necessary expenses or gross negligence falls under necessary expenses [Article 33 (1) 15-21 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007], and doctor's negligence in medical malpractice cannot be deemed to fall under gross negligence unless there are special circumstances, and the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to such special circumstance, and it cannot be deemed that the preparation of the written agreement is the person who is gross negligence. Thus, compensation or agreement based on medical malpractice shall be deemed to fall under necessary expenses. However, the year to which necessary expenses belong shall be the year to which the necessary expenses belong. [Article 39 (1) 22 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8825 of Dec. 31, 2007)] of compensation for damages due to medical malpractice, when an agreement is reached with the victim, ②.

C. Whether necessary expenses are recognized

1) The record reveals that Park 00 paid 10,184,400 won to Park 00 on June 16, 2005 as agreed money due to medical malpractice. Therefore, the above 10,184,400 won should be deducted from the amount of income in 2005.

2) Also, under the pretext of agreement due to medical malpractice, 1,00 won paid 41,00,000 won in total to 0 on March 18, 2006 (21,00,000,000 won 24), 2,00 on May 3, 2006 (10,000,000 won 25), 3,00 on August 28, 206 (10,00,000 won 26), 41,000,000 won in total (3,00,000,000 won should be deducted from the amount of income in March 18, 206). Accordingly, it appears that the above 41,00,00 won, 1,000 won, 200,000 won, 3,000,000 won, 20,000 won, 28,000 won, 27,00.

4) Therefore, the amount of necessary expenses that Park 00 spent from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006 is KRW 51,184,40.

D. Determination on the evaded tax amount

1) The amount of income tax on a resident’s global income shall be calculated by applying the following tax rates to the global income tax base in the current year: 80 million won + 35/100 of the amount exceeding 80 million won + 352/100 of the amount exceeding 80 million won) (1) tax base: Income amount - Necessary expenses for income deduction -

(2) The calculated tax amount for the year 2005: 525,024,823 won (tackers below the won) (tax base 1,53,49, 497 won - 80,000, 000 won) X tax rate 35% + 16,300,000 won for the year 2006: 1,097, 158,978 won (tforest below the won) (tax base 3,168, 168, 511 won - 80,000,000 won) X tax rate 35% + 16,300,300,000 won. - The calculated tax amount; and

(4) Evasion tax amount: Decision tax amount - (Initially determined tax amount).

E. Sub-decision

Then, the defendant evades the amount of income tax of 205 pro rata 514, 273, and 834 won in addition to the income tax of 205 pro rata 514, 273, and 834 won in the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court ( = 517,830, and 00 won in the criminal facts stated in paragraph (1)- 514, 273, and 834 won in the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below) and (2) as well as the income tax of 2006 pro rata 14, 344, and 652 won in the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant shall not be found guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since this part of the facts charged are when there is no proof of the crime, or as long as each of the above facts charged and the crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is found guilty.

Judges Bo Young-won

Judges Dok-Ba

2) The reasons for not guilty as follows 2. D. 2)

3) The evidence list (No. 5) contains “dated illness” but appears to be a clerical error.

4) The evidence list (S Nos. 7, 8, 9) appears to be a clerical error, although the statement of the head of the Tong stated "the withdrawal of the head of the Tong" is written.

5) The defendant and his defense counsel recognize all the facts charged of the instant case, while the sentencing grounds are as follows: ① The defendant is Park 00 and 000

It was not a joint operation of the Council members, but it was merely an employee under the direction and order of Park 00, and ② Defendant

Tax evasion of this case is not led by the tax evasion of this case, but by the proposal and instruction of Park 00

The argument is argued that it would be.

The defendant's tax evasion amount to approximately KRW 1,500,00,000 as well as the statutory penalty for a life or for at least five years;

Whether the defendant jointly operates 000 won in the instant case leading to imprisonment shall be determined by the sentencing of the defendant.

Since it is a key element in this case, the defendant's status in 000 won is examined.

6) Although the partnership contract contains an investment of 300,000,000 won in the partnership contract (at least 505 pages of investigation records), the defendant, and bling00

In addition, the investigative agency stated that the actual investment amount is KRW 350,000,000 in the investigation records [Article 493(100), 522 of the investigation records

(Gamb0), 566 pages (Defendant)

7) 505 pages 505 of the investigation records, in this regard, the name of the accused on the date of preparation of the contract by the investigative agency

In this regard, Park 00, who asked Park 00 that he/she is an interested person, was merely the guarantor, but the day begins as such.

After the accident, the defendant knew that he was a partner of the company (the investigation record No. 493 page).

8) Investigation records 507 pages

19) Investigation records 561, 670 pages

10) Investigation records 522 pages

11) Investigation records 493 pages

12) Investigation records 459 pages

13) Investigation records 494 pages

14) Investigation records 433 pages

15) Investigation records 472, 475 pages

16) Investigation records 247 pages

17) Investigation records 412 pages

18) Investigation records 144 pages 144 et al., 440 pages of investigation records

19) Park 00 means that "The extent of 500 investment funds and the proceeds of the hospital 500,000,000 won by an investigative agency is 00 and 00

A statement is made to the effect that it was used in a hospital for senior citizens operated by the defendant's office located in the Chungcheongbuk-do.

(Investigation Records 527 pages), 100 also were “An investigation agency’s “An investigation agency’s first KRW 000,000 for the author at the bar.”

350,000,000 won invested and 200,000 won existing 000 won, including 500,000,000 won

Defendant embezzled the degree of his embezzlement “(Investigation Records 499 pages).”

In this regard, the Defendant is against 00 persons who are in charge of the operation of the Jeju 00 convalescent Hospital (00 North Korea) by the investigative agency.

Although there is a fact that the hospital and part of the money have been lent, all refer to Park 00, and they have lent to Park 00;

50,000,000 won for the refund to patients suffering from 000 won at the time, and the agreed amount, and the deposit for the apartment of 200 won

In most cases, I stated "(the investigation record, 567 pages)".

Although there is a dispute over the amount and the consent of Park 00, etc. as above, there is a dispute over whether the defendant has given such consent.

The fact that part of the funds of KRW 000 is invested or lent to a hospital that operates punishment is sufficiently recognized.

20) Investigation records 423 pages

21) former Income Tax Act (Law No. 8825)

Article 33 (Non-Inclusion in Necessary Expenses) (1) The following provisions among those paid or to be paid by a resident in the relevant year:

(1) In calculating real estate rental income, business income, or other income, the amount shall be calculated as necessary expenses.

shall not be included in this chapter.

15. Compensation for damage paid by infringing on other person's rights intentionally or by gross negligence in connection with affairs;

22) former Income Tax Act (Law No. 8825)

Article 39 (Accretion Year, etc. of Total Amount of Income and Necessary Expenses) (1) The amount of gross income and necessary expenses of a resident for each year.

The fiscal year shall be the year in which the total amount of income and necessary expenses are determined.

23) Investigation records 265, 269, 270

24) Investigation records 265,272

25) Investigation records 278 pages

26) Investigation records 265,271

27) Investigation records 252, 254

28) Investigation records 253, 255 to 268, 281, 282

29) Investigation records 277 pages

30) Investigation records 508 pages

31) It was calculated on the basis of eight pages of investigation records.