A's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As to the crime subject of the crime of escape cell and the scope of a blanket crime, the crime subject of the crime of escape cell under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is an offender, such as a tax payer and a representative of a corporation or an individual, an agent, employee, and other employees of a corporation or an individual under Article 18 of the same Act.

Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which requires the composition of a case where the amount of annual evasion is above a certain amount, is to punish such a crime. As such, the application of the same Article ought to be determined by summing up the amount of tax evasion and the amount of tax evasion as an offender under Article 18 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7141, May 12, 2005). The lower court determined that Article 8(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes should be applied to the amount of annual evasion of tax evasion of the Defendant, on the grounds that the Defendant is a person with no tax payment that actually belongs to the income, profit, etc. of the instant amusement shop, and is a de facto representative who actually runs a corporation D, and is the subject of the crime of the crime of the escape of tide cell, by adding up the amount of tax evasion of tax evasion of D2 and D corporation with respect to the annual amount of tax evasion of the Defendant.

The above determination by the lower court is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject of the crime of escape from culture and cells and the scope of comprehensive crimes.

B. The ground of appeal to the effect that the estimation method of the business revenue amount under Article 105 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act should take precedence over the estimation method applied by the prosecutor. The ground of appeal is legitimate since the defendant newly asserts in the appellate court that the defendant was either the ground of appeal or the lower court was not subject to an ex officio determination.