[2] The degree of evidence supporting the confession and the standard of determining credibility of confessions

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the records, since it is apparent that the defendant appealed the judgment of the court of first instance only on the ground of unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, the defendant cannot be deemed as the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance which rendered a minor punishment than the judgment of the court of first instance by citing the defendant's appeal against the guilty portion while destroying all of the judgment of first instance, and citing the appeal against the conviction portion, and cannot be deemed as the grounds for appeal (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2134, Feb. 3, 1995; 2004Do927, Apr. 28, 2004, etc.). Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the evasion of compulsory execution against the judgment of the

In addition, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor, the reason that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

The defendant's ground of appeal is without merit.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Violation of the legal principles as to Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a taxpayer shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than one year or by a fine equivalent to an amount in arrears where the taxpayer fails to pay national taxes more than three times a fiscal year without any justifiable reason. The term "payment in arrears of national taxes" means that the taxpayer has the time limit for payment without paying national taxes by the time limit for payment (see Article 3(1) of the National Tax Collection Act), and the head of a tax office may designate the time limit for payment in 30 days from the date of the notice of payment in national taxes (see Article 11 of the National Tax Collection Act). The time limit for payment refers to the time limit for payment in national taxes designated by the head of a tax office through a notice of payment ordering the tax payment in arrears, payment in national taxes, or a notice of payment in the notice of payment in the notice of payment or payment (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da2120, Oct. 30, 201).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as stated in the separate sheet No. 3 in the judgment of the court below, only on January 1, 2004, the following day of December 31, 2003, the time limit for payment of national taxes was established, and it cannot be deemed that the failure to pay national taxes was in arrears for 2004 fiscal year, and therefore, the failure in payment for fiscal year 2003 shall not be deemed to have been in arrears for 3 or more times in the fiscal year 2003, since it was only 1, 2-2 of the same table No. 7 or 11, and the decision of the court below acquitted the defendant of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as stated in the separate sheet No. 7 or 11, the time limit for payment of national taxes on December 31, 2004. Thus, the court below is justified in finding that there was a violation of the aforementioned legal principles or the records as mentioned in the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning of default under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Meritorious of legal principles as to the admissibility of reinforcement evidence and confession

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act listed in the annexed list Nos. 4 through 6 of the crime list in the judgment below among the facts charged in this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the charges on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received a notice of payment to pay value-added tax, in light of the following: although the defendant acknowledged that he did not pay value-added tax from the police to the court below, he did not pay the above value-added tax, the confession constitutes only the only evidence unfavorable to the defendant; and further, the confession cannot be used as evidence for conviction; and it seems that the defendant received a notice of payment to pay value-added tax to the court below, while considering the evidence that meet the above confession, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received a notice of tax payment regarding the above confession

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

Reinforcement evidence for confession is sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of a defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and it can not only be indirect evidence, but also circumstantial evidence. In addition, evidence for confession and reinforcement can be admitted as a whole as evidence of guilt if it is possible to prove the facts constituting the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do2890, Dec. 22, 1998; 2001Do579, Mar. 23, 2001; 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001; 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001). Meanwhile, in determining the credibility of confession, the contents of confession statement per se are objectively rational, the motive or reason of confession, and the circumstances leading up to the confession or the circumstances leading up to the confession other than the confession under Article 98 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, according to the records, among the evidence determined by the court below that the defendant's confession could not be used as supporting evidence, the accusation from the head of the Ansan Tax Office, investigation report (to report the contents of telephone conversations with the public official charged), investigation report (to provide value-added tax and staff in charge, hearing statements), and investigation report not rejected by the court below (to notify the defendant, who is the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation, of the payment of value-added tax) can be used as supporting evidence for the defendant's confession since the purport of the notification was prepared in fact at the time of the notification to pay value-added tax to the non-indicted 2 corporation, and the defendant did not pay it. The copy of the mail receipt attached to the accusation can be used as supporting evidence for the defendant's confession because it was not directly related to the delivery of the tax notice related to the labor income tax base in 205, but it cannot be found that the defendant's confession and non-indicted 2 corporation did not have any other reasons for receiving the above confession from the police office by means of mail.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled that the above evidence cannot be the supporting evidence for the confession of the defendant as to this part of the facts charged, or that the above evidence alone is not sufficient to recognize the credibility of the confession of the defendant. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reinforcement evidence and credibility of confession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Scope of reversal

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act relating to failure to pay value-added taxes for the fiscal year 2004 as stated in Nos. 4 or 11 of the annexed Table Nos. 4 or 11 in the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have been charged as a blanket crime. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s appeal on part of the facts charged cannot be accepted and the acquittal cannot be found, it shall be deemed that

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act relating to failure to pay value-added taxes for 2004 fiscal years as stated in Nos. 4 through 11 of the annexed crime list in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed. Since the facts charged and the facts charged which the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence shall be imposed. Thus, the judgment of the court below on each of the above parts shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the prosecutor's remaining

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)