[1] The number of crimes in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and the meaning of "annual evaded tax amount, etc." under Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes [the amount obtained by adding up the tax amount evaded for each year (from January 1 to December 31)

[2] The method of dealing with a final and conclusive judgment in the middle of a comprehensive 1 crime

[1] In principle, the number of tax evasions initially constitute one crime on the basis of the recovery of fulfillment of the elements of violation. However, Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is incorporated into an act under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by combining the grounds for the increase of annual amount of tax evasion in excess of a certain amount and statutory punishment therefor. Thus, if the sum of the tax evasions for one year regardless of the type of tax exceeds the amount provided for in Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, only one crime is established. The crime of violation of the same paragraph constitutes one crime on a yearly basis, and the crime of violation constitutes one crime, and one of them constitutes one crime, and the "annual amount of tax evasion, etc." in the same paragraph refers to the sum of tax evasions by each year (from January 1 to December 31) regardless of each tax item

[2] An inclusive 1 crime is not a single comprehensive crime, but a single comprehensive crime should be treated as a crime after the final and conclusive judgment in the middle of the crime, even though the final and conclusive judgment has become final and conclusive.

[1] Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Articles 37 and 39 of the

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do3822 delivered on April 20, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1225) decided May 25, 1982 (Gong1982, 624) (Gong1982, 624) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Do2767 delivered on February 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 579)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jin-hun et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2000No1642 delivered on October 10, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The court below: ① received tuition fees, etc. from a private teaching institute operated by the above company from August 1, 1996 to December 31, 196; ② omitted income amount of KRW 3,850,930,59; ② omitted corporate tax on the above income amount of KRW 1,070,570; ② omitted corporate tax on the above income amount of KRW 97.197.197; ② omitted income amount of KRW 97.196,97,97,97; ② omitted income amount of KRW 1,070,50,70,97.197,97,97,96.196.196.3.6.6.6.6.6.197, 197, 197, 197, 3.6.6.7, 196, 197, 3.6.7, 196, 197, 1998.

2. A. The court below held on April 18, 197 that corporate tax evasion against the above criminal facts constitutes a violation of Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; corporate tax evasion against the income for the business year of 1997; corporate tax evasion against the income for the business year of 1997; the act of tax evasion against the income for the business year of 1997; and the act of tax evasion against the value-added tax for the second year of 1997; and on the other hand, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 30 million as a violation of the Labor Standards Act by the Seoul District Court on April 18, 1997; the judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 1997; and sentenced a separate sentence pursuant to the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1)1 of the Criminal Act against the crime of tax evasion against the income for the business year of 196.

B. (1) However, the number of original crimes of tax evasion constitutes one crime on the basis of the recovery of fulfillment of the constituent elements of the violation. However, Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a single crime by combining the acts under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the acts of increasing the annual amount of tax evasion in excess of a certain amount. Therefore, if the sum of the amount of tax evasion for one year regardless of the type of tax exceeds the amount provided for in Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, only one crime is established. The crime of violating the same paragraph constitutes one crime on a yearly basis, and the crime of tax evasion for one year constitutes one crime, and the term "annual amount of tax evasion, etc." in the same paragraph refers to the sum of the amount of tax evasion for each year (from January 1 to December 31, 200) regardless of the taxable period of each tax item, Article 9(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders for 197).

B. Meanwhile, the crime of blanket 1 is not divided into two separate crimes, and in this case, it is necessary to deal with the crime after the final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2767, Feb. 25, 1986). In this case, the judgment of violation of the Labor Standards Act against the defendant became final and conclusive on April 26, 197, but the violation of the Labor Standards Act is different from the crime of violation of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the violation of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes under the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the 196 Business Year's Income and the violation of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the 196 Business Year's Income under the Aggravated Punishment Act shall be treated as the crime of violation of the above Act since the time limit for payment after the lapse of value-added tax in July 25, 1997.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)