[2] The case affirming an extraordinary appeal against the original judgment which issued a summary order with excessive restriction on the expiration of the statute of limitations period

[2] The case affirming an extraordinary appeal against the original judgment which issued a summary order with excessive restriction on the expiration of the statute of limitations period

The defendant is a corporation with the objective of start-up investment, etc., and the facts at the office of the defendant in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (detailed address omitted) on August 31, 1999 with respect to the defendant's business. The defendant sold 30,000 won per share to the non-indicted 3,000 won a share of 30,000 won a share, which was held by the defendant to the non-indicted 2. On November 20 of the same year, the defendant sold to the non-indicted 3, 300 won a share of 9,000 won a share of 19,000 won a share, and on March 31, 200, the defendant prepared a false share sales contract as if it were sold to the non-indicted 3,50 won a share of 9,000 won a share of 1,09,095,000 won a share of the defendant's corporate tax base on March 31, 200.

2. Details of establishment of the original judgment;

According to the records, the prosecutor applied Articles 3 and 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to the facts charged in the instant case, and applied the summary order on September 7, 2005. On October 13, 2005, the original judgment issued a summary order (hereinafter “original judgment”) to the effect that the defendant is punished by a fine of 312,075,000 won, and the original judgment became final and conclusive on October 25, 2005 with the lapse of the deadline for requesting formal trial.

3. Appropriateness of an extraordinary appeal;

Article 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the statute of limitations for the crime of tax evasion under Article 9(1) shall be five years, and where the tax base or tax amount is evaded by falsely underreporting as in this case, the period for filing the tax return and the payment expires, and the crime of tax evasion is committed upon the expiration of the period for filing the tax return and the payment (see Article 9-3 subparag. 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act), and in the case of the corporate tax of this case, after the lapse of March 31, 200 (see Articles 60(1) and 64(1) of the Corporate Tax Act) (see Articles 60(1) and 64(1) of the Corporate Tax Act), and in the case of the securities transaction tax, after the lapse of December 10, 199 (see Article 10(1) and (2) of the Securities Transaction Tax Act), each of the crimes of tax evasion shall be deemed to have expired. Accordingly, since the summary order of this case was claimed on September 7, 2005.

Nevertheless, the original judgment which issued a summary order to the defendant with excessive completion of the statute of limitations has violated the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4289 type emergency1, May 3, 1957; Supreme Court Decision 62O4, Jan. 10, 1963); and the extraordinary appeal of this case has grounds for pointing this out.

Therefore, according to the proviso of Article 446 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the following decision shall be rendered again for the accused case.

4. Scrap plate for destruction; and

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as stated in Paragraph (1) above, and as seen above, since the statute of limitations has expired, it is so decided to dismiss the defendant pursuant to Item 3 of Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)