조세범처벌법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is that Defendant B made an investment seven years prior to the time of the provisional registration, and the remittance materials are also investment funds, and Defendant A made a provisional registration for the purpose of securing investment funds which are not settled on the real estate of this case, which is the only property of Defendant B, and it is clear that the provisional registration of this case in the name of Defendant B was made on the ground of false trade promise, and that the provisional registration of this case and the principal registration were made on the ground of a false trade promise, and the Defendants were for the purpose of evading a disposition on default, and thus, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of this case, and there is an
2. Determination:
A. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) Defendant Gangnam-gu Tax Office Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”)
A) A tax investigation was conducted from September 21, 2005 to November 10, 2005 with respect to the omission of a return on revenue amount, and around March 20, 2006, upon imposition of KRW 1,934,056,493 of corporate tax for the year 2004 as to E. A. Defendant A, a representative director of E and 98% of E shares, were designated as the secondary taxpayer on April 6, 2006, and notified the second taxpayer on May 10, 2006 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
On May 2, 2006, immediately after Defendant A was designated as the secondary taxpayer, Defendant A completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B, which was based on the pre-sale agreement with Defendant B on May 2, 2006. Accordingly, Korea filed a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act against the above provisional registration and won the first instance trial around September 27, 2007. However, around November 23, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal's decision on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax (the first instance court decision 2006Du2097) as to the disposition of imposition of corporate tax was erroneous on the ground that the said provisional registration was reverted to the corporate tax.