[조세범처벌법위반,주세법위반][집5(2)행,011]
The completion of the statute of limitations and extraordinary appeal
Since the statute of limitations for the act of violating the provisions of Article 8 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act has expired two years after the lapse of the statute of limitations, the court shall prepare a summary order to be sentenced to a fine on December 3, 4286, which was left alone as the court did not take measures such as sending the vehicle to the defendant or suspending the statute of limitations, but sent it to the defendant on October 2, 4289, which was then sent on the seventh day of the same month and served the defendant on the day after the lapse of the period of request for regular trial, and the statute of limitations for the case became final and conclusive after the lapse of the period of request for regular trial. Since the statute of limitations for the case was two years pursuant to Article 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it is apparent that the period of neglect is more than two years, under Article 1 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act, to apply to this case under Article 363 subparagraph 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act, the court below shall reverse the summary order under Article 50 subparagraph 1 of the former Criminal Procedure Act.
Articles 8 and 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (former Criminal Procedure Act)
(Acting Prosecutor General) The maximum trend;
Gwangju District Court of the first instance
The main height is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 argues that the plaintiff 2 had a misunderstanding of legal principles as to the properties of the company Gap's 1,00 original judgment, and that the plaintiff was appointed a manager under the name of the company Gap's 1,00. The plaintiff's 2,000 original judgment was not the 1,500 original judgment, and that the plaintiff's 2,000 new shares were not the 1,00 original judgment, and that the 1,000 new shares were not the 1,00 original judgment, and that the 2,000 new shares were not the 1,00 original judgment, and that the 1,000 new shares were the 1,00 original judgment, and that the 2,000 original judgment was not the 1,00 original judgment, and that the 2,000th new shares were the 1,000 original judgment, and that there was no violation of law as to the 2,000 original shares owned by the defendant.
However, even though it is an enterprise to which the ship of this case belongs with the novel theory, as long as the building of this case was not subject to the separate measures prescribed in the Hare Act regardless of the property belonging to the enterprise, and the lease was made to the other party, the disposition of this case is not unlawful, and there is no error of law as to the administrative disposition of this case which revoked the illegal disposition of this case, as well as Gap evidence Nos. 134-1 and No. 2-2, each of the statements in the evidence No. 134-1 and No. 2-2, and the whole purport of the party's theory, it is reasonable to recognize that the building of this case is identical to the building of the defendant's principal.
It is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 401, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)