2013 Gohap1223

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Defendant A and B);

(2) The violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts;

(c) Acquisition of third-party brain;

(d) Abetting an offender;

E. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

1.(b)(d) A

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.b.ma.D

Kim Jong-soo (prosecution), Nopo-hee, and mobile speech (public trial)

Attorney E, F (for Defendant A)

Law Firm G (Defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm I (for defendant C, defendant D)

Attorney J, K-K

May 8, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and fine for nine billion won; imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B for three years and fine for 14 billion won; imprisonment with prison labor for one year; and imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C for ten months.

In the event that Defendant A and B fail to pay the above fine, nine million won for Defendant A, and 14 million won for Defendant B, the above Defendants shall be confined in each workhouse for the period converted into each one day.

However, with respect to Defendant D, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

40 million won shall be additionally collected from Defendant A.

The charge of aiding and abetting Defendant A from committing a crime, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) against Defendant C, and violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is acquitted.

Criminal History Office

1. Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. by Defendant A, C or D;

A. Status of the Defendants’ operation of entertainment taverns

Defendant A and C, along with the Gangnam-gu Seoul L, leased Ma building on the 1st floor and the 10th floor above the ground, were operated as entertainment taverns from the 1st to the 7th floor above the above ground, and operated as the 8th floor above the ground to the 10th floor above the ground. In addition, Defendant A and C, together with the above, conspired to conduct the so-called 'dupulous' business by having female entertainment reception visitors enter the sexual organ of entertainment bars in entertainment taverns, and by having them enter the place to the Moel and sexual intercourse with the above users.

On the other hand, Defendant A, C, and B, etc.: (a) leased the said building under the name of another person and sublet it to an entertainment drinking club business operator under the name of another person; (b) operated an entertainment drinking club business under the name of an entertainment tavern and her mother; (c) operated an entertainment club business under the name of another person; (d) operated an entertainment club business under the business license of an entertainment club and her mother; and (e) divided it into two entertainment taverns in order to continuously engage in the business of arranging sexual traffic on the other floors; and (e) operated the entertainment club by continuously changing the name of another person.

Accordingly, around August 1, 2010, Defendant A, C, and B, etc. leased the above building under the name of N, which is the seat of Defendant A. On or around August 9, 2010. On or around August 9, 2010, Defendant A, C, and B, etc. registered a business under the name of 'P' business under the name of 'P' business under the name of 'P' business operator for 8th to 10th floor above the above building under the name of 'P'. On or around August 10, 2010, Defendant A, C, and B, etc. registered a business under the trade name of 'R' for 1st floor above and 7th floor above the above building under the name of 'P' under the name of 'P' business operator under the name of 'P' business operator under the name of 0th floor above and Q again started a business under the name of 'P' business operator under the name of 1st floor and 2nd floor above.

Furthermore, around September 27, 201, Defendant A, C, and B, etc. changed to U in the name of the entertainment drinking house "R", and changed the trade name of the said business from July 6, 2012 to “V,” and Defendant D, respectively, and the said "T" changed to the name of the entertainment drinking house around February 22, 201, WW around July 12, 201, X-X and December 11, 201, and Y were changed to “Z” on April 16, 201, and the name of the business owner was changed to “AB” (after that, the trade name of the entertainment drinking house was changed to “AB,” and the trade name of the MaP, “AC” was not completed.

The term "in the case of the above entertainment tavern" is referred to as "the entertainment tavern in this case", and where it is necessary to specify individual entertainment taverns, it is to indicate the relevant entertainment tavern in the first trade name.

On the other hand, Defendants A and B, etc., as joint owners of the entertainment tavern and model of this case, have a specific share (Defendant A20%, B50%, etc.). Defendants A and B, as joint owners of the entertainment tavern and model of this case, were in charge of overall management of entertainment drinking club business and Mosel business; Defendant A, as their own members, registered business under the above name; Defendant A and her own members to take exclusive charge of tax issues of entertainment drinking club and Mosur; Defendant C, as a general manager, managed overall business activities in accordance with the instructions of Defendant A and B; Defendant D, as a general manager of business; Defendant D, as an assistant manager of the YU market of this case; and Defendant AE and AF, as well as accounting affairs of the aforesaid entertainment drinking club.

(b) Specific crimes of arranging sexual traffic;

After the Defendants shared their roles as above with B, etc., at entertainment tavern around 00:45 on September 8, 2010, the Defendants received 350,000 won each from entertainment tavern users A and AH in return for the drinking value and commercial sex acts, and provided them with the above AG and AH studio at the place where they had female entertainment visitors and AI and AJ attend with them, and provided them with a similar act of drinking alcohol at the place where they did so, they moved to 806 of the "P" televis in the same building to have sexual intercourse once. From around August 2010, Defendant A, Defendant C and D had each of the above entertainment tavern users use entertainment drinking and 15 days from their male and female sexual intercourses at the instant entertainment bar and from May 11, 2012 to December 12, 2012.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with B, etc. to arrange commercial sex acts.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

The Defendants conspired with AE and AF in charge of the accounting work of the instant entertainment tavern from August 2010 to December 2, 2012, while running the instant entertainment tavern from around August 2010 to around December 1, 2012. In cases where the Defendants, as described in paragraph (a) of Article 1, disguisedly concealed the actual owner of the instant entertainment drinking club, and paid a service fee to female entertainment visitors, the Defendants confirmed the receipt of the service fee in accordance with the relevant statutes, and withheld 5% of the amount of the service fee in the relevant service fee payment ledger. However, without taking such measures as above, concealed the service fee payment transaction, and destroyed the books by which daily sales can be confirmed, such as lighting, etc., and filed a false report by reducing the sales amount by reducing the sales amount received by the head of the business of the said entertainment drinking club from the proprietor without issuing cash receipts and the credit sales amount transferred to the account.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired in collusion with each other by fraud or other improper means as set out in the table 1 below, Defendant A evaded the total of KRW 208,150,863, the total of KRW 3,206,783, and the total of KRW 3,657,282,659, and the total of KRW 1,761,77,046 in the year 2012, and KRW 8,833,393,736 in the total of KRW 208,150,863, and KRW 3,736,350,058 in the year 201, and KRW 5,730,865,02,865 in the total of KRW 2012, KRW 3,653,636 in the total of KRW 2013,636,84,616,6365,206,37,2016.

(Voting 1)

A person shall be appointed.

3. Acquisition by Defendant A’s third-party brain;

On May 2010, the Defendant received a solicitation from a police officer known to the Defendant for the crackdown on illegal business, such as arranging sexual traffic of the above entertainment bars, in the entertainment tavern for 'N' in the 'AL hotel' underground of 'AL hotel in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul', and through 'AL hotel' in the 'AL hotel' underground.

On May 22:00, the Defendant received KRW 30 million in cash from AM in the same place on May 21, 2010, in the “AP restaurant” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, under the pretext of delivering AM to AP and AR team leader AS, affiliated with the Seoul Gangnam Police Station. On May 21, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 30 million in cash from AM in the same place on the pretext of delivering AM to AT and AP and AU team leader AV, affiliated with the Seoul Gangnam Police Station.

As a result, the Defendant received money of KRW 40 million in total from AM on two occasions with the knowledge that AM will be given a bribe to the public official.

4. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by Defendant D

On July 6, 2012, the Defendant received a request from the said B to lend the name of the proprietor in the instant entertainment tavern business. B, as seen in Article 1-1(a), with the intent of evading taxes by means of reducing cash sales and filing a false report, etc. while running the entertainment tavern business, the Defendant allowed B, using the Defendant’s name, to register the “V” entertainment tavern business entity among entertainment taverns in the instant case.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B, C, and D

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. AM, AE, AF, Q, N, S, AW, U, Y, AZ, and BA's respective legal statements;

1. Written suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of the BB, BC,D, and BE;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence List Nos. 13, 15, 22, 30, 35-39, 44-63, 115, 118, 119-121, 144);

【Public Notice No. 21】

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant A, B, and C

1. Each legal statement of a witness AE, AF, Q, N, S, and AX;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 119-123, 147, 149, 150 of the evidence list);

【Plaintiff-Appellee】

1. Legal statement of the witness AM;

1. The witness's legal statements in each part of the AY, AZ, and BA;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 7,8 of evidence lists);

[Attachment 4]

1. Defendant D’s legal statement

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant A, B, and C

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning AE and AF;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 22,30,44, 48, 49, 61, 63)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

1. The point of the arrangement of commercial sex acts: Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the punishment of such acts)

(ii)the point of tax evasion;

(a) The part of 2010: the text of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

B) The part of the year 2011, 2012, and 2013: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 11136, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) inclusive for the pertinent year; Article 30 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

3) Possession of third-party brain acquisition: Articles 133(2) and (1) and 129(1) of each Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

B. Defendant B

1. The part of 2010: the text of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, inclusive;

2) Part of the year 2011, 2012, and 2013: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, comprehensively covering the pertinent year

C. Defendant

In general, Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant D

1. The occupation of arranging sexual traffic: Article 19(2)1 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, collectively, Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the act of name lending: Article 11 (2) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (defendant A, B, and D);

(a) Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act for Defendant A and B (Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor as provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for the year 2012, which is the largest punishment and criminal administration: Provided, That with respect to each of the necessary fines concurrently imposed, Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall not apply with respect to Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act on the restriction on the aggravation of fines

B. Defendant D.

Articles 37(former part), 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of the crimes specified in the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act to the punishment for the act of arranging sexual traffic with heavier punishment

3. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant A, B);

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(1)6 of each Criminal Code (The following circumstances are considered as favorable among the reasons for sentencing)

4. Attraction of a workhouse (Defendant A and B);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

5. Suspension of execution (Defendant D);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

6. Collection (Defendant A).

Article 134 of the Criminal Act (40 million won related to the crime of acquiring a third-party brain product)

[On the other hand, Article 25 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. provides that the money, goods and other property acquired by a person who commits a crime under Article 19 (2) 1 of the same Act shall be confiscated, and if it is impossible to confiscate them, the equivalent value shall be collected. However, the equivalent value shall be limited to the profits actually acquired by the criminal. However, the materials revealed in the records of this case alone are difficult to accurately calculate the amount of income actually acquired by the criminal due to the operation of the entertainment tavern of this case, and unless there is clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the additional collection shall not be imposed on the part of the defendant in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. Part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. Act;

A. Summary of the argument

The Defendant merely carried out a tax-related agency business of the entertainment tavern in this case, and did not take part in the business of arranging sexual traffic at the entertainment tavern in this case. However, the Defendant did not acquire shares of the entertainment tavern in this case or operate the entertainment tavern in joint with B, etc., and it cannot be deemed that he conspired and participated in the crime of arranging sexual traffic.

B. Determination

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court (hereinafter "the evidence of this case"), even though the defendant did not directly participate in the business method or specific business activities of the entertainment tavern of this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that he participated in the crime of arranging sexual traffic by soliciting the operation of the entertainment tavern of this case with B, etc. in the form of so-called "balone", and contributing considerably to the process of opening and operating the entertainment tavern of this case. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

1) First, with respect to the circumstances in which the defendant participated in the operation of the entertainment tavern in this case, B made a statement to the effect that "the defendant is running an entertainment tavern with AM as it is subject to the police control around March 2010 by the entertainment tavern in the prosecutor's office and this court, and the 'BF' jointly operated with AM after investing 100 million won, and it is difficult for B to conduct the business due to the reason that the entertainment tavern is subject to the police control around March 2010, B made a proposal to open the entertainment tavern to the effect that 'R' to reduce the 20% shares of the defendant in order to recover the investment deposit." The above statement is consistent with the main part of the statement, and it is difficult to reject its credibility as it has been consistent with the above 'R' with the statement in lieu of the above B's statement.

2) In addition, S made the so-called "R" work to assign customers' studio in the instant entertainment tavern in the prosecutor's office and this court, and in the prosecutor's office and this court, "B et al. did not have the ability to solve the problem of tax treatment (on a regular basis, providing money or goods to police officers, etc.), and therefore, "BF was engaged in tax payment from "BF", and police officers were also aware of the fact that "R was operated from August 2010 to "R". The prosecutor's office, a business operator in the name of "R", who is the defendant's business operator in the name of "BF", added "BF" to 60,000,000 won in charge of tax affairs related to "B" in the entertainment tavern, and made a statement that "B" did not recognize its shares."

3) On the other hand, the Defendant invested 150 million won in 'BF' and 'BG' respectively in 'BG' entertainment tavern prior to 'R' and 'BG', and 480 million won in 'N' entertainment taverns, and the above entertainment taverns are subject to police control since 3, 2010, and 'BF's entertainment taverns are detained as being suspected of arranging sexual traffic around June 2010. As such, it has become difficult to recover their investment money through the business of each entertainment taverns, and at the Defendant's request, it was 2 billion won in advance from 'BF' in the name of 'BF' entertainment taverns' and 'BG's entertainment taverns as security, and thus, the need for the operation of a new entertainment taverns even in order to repay the above debts.

4) Furthermore, around August 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) had N, one’s own land, enter into a lease contract for the M building in its name; (b) had registered the business of "R" with respect to the entertainment drinking club under the name of Q, another land, and had changed the name to U who was introduced through BH, which was known to the general public; and (c) had each of the above loan holders regularly pay the price for the name lending to the above loan holders; and (d) had dealt with the instant entertainment drinking club business under one’s own initiative, such as making it difficult to track the actual place of business where it is discovered while engaging in the business of arranging commercial sex acts in the form of so-called "Libal harassment".

5) In addition, the Defendant argues that: (a) the Defendant paid to B, etc. at the time of the commencement of his business of the entertainment tavern business; (b) the Defendant received a credit card sales slip or cash receipt from the entertainment tavern in this case; and (c) the process of performing tax agency business by paying the remaining amount after deducting the prescribed fees from B, etc.; and (d) the payment of the said amount; and (c) the said amount is not the “investment deposit for the joint operation of the entertainment tavern in this case.” However, the above 60 million won was used as part of the lease deposit for the above M building according to the Defendant’s actual intent; and (d) the Defendant, while carrying out the business related to the entertainment tavern in this case, did not contribute to the business related to the entertainment tavern in this case; and (e) in light of the overall circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of this case, it is difficult to view that the above 60 million won was a mere tax agent, as alleged by the Defendant.

6) Furthermore, considering that AE, a person in charge of the accounting of an entertainment drinking house, around September 16, 2010, included the title "R" in the EX files of "TR", "TR" in the title, including a building deposit for an entertainment drinking house, the share ratio of joint right holders, including the defendant, and the actual amount of contributions made by the above right holders, are 20% of the shares of the entertainment drinking house, and the defendant holds 20% of the shares of the entertainment drinking house, and the remaining 60 million won should be additionally contributed at the investment of 60 million won, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the defendant's 20% shares of the entertainment drinking house of "R" in relation to the 60 million won invested at the beginning of the business of the entertainment drinking house. In addition, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's 20% shares of the entertainment drinking house of this case have not been acquired by the defendant.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Defendant A and B);

A. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

1) Summary of the argument

The Defendant organized sales data, such as credit card slips and cash receipts, received from B, etc., and delivered them to a tax accountant, and did not jointly engage in a tax-related business. As such, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay taxes imposed on the Defendant in relation to the business of the entertainment tavern in this case, and as such, the Defendant could not know about the entire sales amount of the entertainment tavern in this case or whether it was omitted from the materials provided by B, the Defendant did not have any intention to evade taxes.

2) Determination

However, as seen above, the defendant's joint business owner with 20% shares in the entertainment tavern in this case shall be deemed to be a joint business owner with the aforesaid 20% shares, and in addition to the following circumstances recognized by each evidence in this case, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that he/she evaded his/her tax as stated in the judgment by means of fraud, such as omitting cash sales in the course of operating the entertainment tavern in this case, or by other unlawful means. Thus, the above assertion is rejected

A) In the case of the Defendant’s business related to the tax of the entertainment tavern of this case, the specific contents are as follows: the Defendant, while managing accounts such as Q, etc. in the name of the proprietor of the instant entertainment tavern; the Defendant paid fees to the credit card company at an amount equivalent to 19% of the credit card sales generated from the entertainment tavern (14.5% of the sales revenue, as there is no reason to deduct the credit card fee separately for the sales of the sales of which the cash receipts have been issued) and processed all tax issues arising from the entertainment tavern; and then, the remainder of the tax issues arising from the entertainment tavern is its revenue. The method is, in itself, filing a false tax return by omitting the cash sales that did not have been issued as cash receipts

B) Meanwhile, even before the instant entertainment tavern, the Defendant has been engaged in tax-related affairs in the same way with respect to various entertainment taverns operated by AM, and he also experienced from 1989 to 195 by running an entertainment tavern. In ordinary entertainment taverns, the Defendant seems to have been well aware of the fact that the ratio of cash sales, which is not exposed by the tax source, is significantly higher than the ratio of credit card sales exposed by the tax source in the case of the instant entertainment taverns. Therefore, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had a criminal intent to evade taxes by omitting the cash sales, while carrying out tax-related affairs with respect to the instant entertainment taverns in the instant case.

C) Furthermore, in the case of entertainment establishments such as “R” entertainment bars, the sales volume of alcoholic beverages to be supplied to the entertainment establishments in which all the tax invoices were issued at the time of purchasing alcoholic beverages from a liquor company is inevitable, and the person in charge of the accounting of “R” entertainment tavern stated to the effect that “E shall not directly contact with the employees in charge of the liquor company and arrange for the issue of purchase tax invoices by the employees in charge of the liquor company.” Accordingly, according to this, the defendant can be seen to have concealed the crime of tax evasion of the entertainment tavern in this case by actively concealing the sales volume of alcoholic beverages to be supplied to the entertainment establishments.

D) Furthermore, the prosecutorial office stated that “B, while dealing exclusively with the tax issue, the Defendant said that “at the end of the month, I would like to have dealt with the cash receipts to a certain extent,” and “R” also stated that “E and AF, who took charge of the accounting affairs of entertainment taverns, carried out all the tax issues of entertainment taverns, whether cash sales or credit card sales, and instructed the Defendant to issue cash receipts at the end of the month.” In light of these statements, the Defendant’s assertion that “AE and AF, who was in charge of the accounting affairs of entertainment taverns, was in charge of the accounting affairs of entertainment taverns, was in charge of all the tax issues of entertainment taverns, and was given an order to issue cash receipts at the end of the month, is not persuasive.”

B. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

1) The Defendant did not have conspired to commit a crime of tax evasion, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act.”

A) Summary of the argument

The defendant only transferred the sales data requested by the defendant to A in exclusive charge of tax-related affairs, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime of tax evasion with A, and the defendant's destruction of "the so-called" "the sales of entertainment tavern" (the sales log stating the daily sales alcoholic beverages, the studio room, the identification number of the person in charge, etc., and the daily cash or card settlement details, or the settlement situation of accounts on credit, etc.) is true, but it cannot be deemed that the purpose or intent of tax evasion has been achieved in light of the timing and circumstances of the destruction. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have evaded taxes due to "Fraud or other unlawful acts."

B) Determination

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, the defendant can sufficiently recognize that he/she evaded taxes, such as income tax, value-added tax, and individual consumption tax, as stated in its holding, in a manner that he/she operates the entertainment tavern of this case and operates it in collusion with A, makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes. Accordingly, this part of the

(1) In other words, the Defendant had been engaged in entertainment business for more than 10 years in the “BF” entertainment drinking club run by AM even before running the instant entertainment drinking club. Thus, even if the Defendant did not directly take charge of the tax-related affairs of the instant entertainment drinking club, the Defendant was aware of the circumstances, such as the following: (a) even if the Defendant did not directly take charge of the tax-related affairs of the entertainment drinking club, the Defendant was able to report the reduction of sales using the entertainment drinking club due to the higher ratio of cash sales that is not exposed to the Plaintiff; and (b) to conceal the fact of tax evasion by receiving false purchase tax invoices related

(2) In addition, while the Defendant was well aware of the fact that A is carrying out a tax-related business by any method in the entertainment tavern business in this case, the Defendant had been in charge of a tax-related business from the beginning of the business of the entertainment tavern in this case. As seen earlier, the fact that A is basically evading a tax imposed on the part of cash sales of the entertainment tavern in this case, which is basically a tax-related business, shall be deemed to have been aware of the fact that A would be evading a tax-related business in relation to the cash sales of the entertainment tavern in this case by having at least the Defendant conduct a tax-related business in entirety.

(3) Furthermore, by making a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was aware of a specific amount of tax evasion, but it was aware of a certain amount of tax evasion,” the Defendant voluntarily recognized that A, who was exclusively in charge of tax-related duties in the course of operating the entertainment tavern in this case, was committing a crime of tax evasion, such as omitting sales, etc., and the Defendant was in the position to exercise overall control over the business of the entertainment tavern and the yacht as the largest right holder of the entertainment tavern in this case, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant to have committed the crime of tax evasion under an implicit conspiracy with A at least by the Defendant to have committed the crime of tax evasion.

(4) Meanwhile, “Fraud or other unlawful act” as referred to in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to any fraudulent act or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes. As seen earlier, if the Defendant and A conspired with the person in charge of the management of the entertainment tavern of this case to conceal the actual business owner of the entertainment tavern of this case and conceals the transaction of paying service fees to female entertainment reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception reception

(5) In regard to this, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that, only in this court, “if he had kept in his mother house, and discarded it on or around April 2013,” the Defendant did not destroy the sculpture for the purpose of tax evasion. However, in the case of the crime of tax evasion, it does not require the Defendant to evade or evade taxes. Thus, the Defendant’s act of destroying one of the basic materials for calculating the sales amount at the time of destroying the above sculpture, and itself constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful acts” under the Punishment of Tax Act. Furthermore, in the prosecution, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “after closing the settlement of accounts to AF, etc. in charge of ordinary business, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he received such instructions from the Defendant, and it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s act was in violation of the purpose of tax evasion.”

2) The assessment of the instant tax evasion amount was erroneous.

A) Summary of the argument

(1) The amount of evaded tax of this case shall be the tax base of the amount calculated by deducting the service fees paid to entertainment reception workers and business office, etc., which most of the entertainment drinking club in this case is the total sales of the entertainment drinking club in this case. (2) In the event there are money withdrawal and payment prepared by AF in charge of the accounting of the entertainment drinking club in this case, it was calculated according to the estimation and calculation even though it is not reasonable in the calculation method. (3) In particular, in the case of the portion of evaded income tax, the share of the entertainment drinking club in this case owned by the defendant is 50%, but its share is 70%, and thus, it is calculated on the premise that the tax calculation method is a 70%. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for the tax amount.

B) Determination

(1) First of all, according to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, namely, Value-Added Tax Act, individual consumption tax-related provisions, and National Tax Service’s notice, etc., as to whether to deduct service charges from the sales of entertainment taverns, it is confirmed that the business operator entered the credit card sales slip, etc. issued to the recipient in order to exclude the service charges, and paid the service charges to the relevant employee. The records of this case do not exist at all according to the above National Tax Service’s notice, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge the fact that the service charges are paid (the defendant is not entitled to deducting from the sales slip of this case’s 50,000 won or 50,000 won or 50,000 won or 50,000 won or 50,000 won or 50,000 won, or 50,000 won or 50,000 won, etc.,00 won or 55,000,000 won,000 won or more.

Even if there is an error in calculating the amount of evaded tax, this part of the claim is without merit.

(2) As to the legitimacy of the following estimated calculation, the tax base was based on the monthly data (record 2,877-2,922 in the list of evidence) prepared by AE as the basis for committing a crime of tax evasion, namely, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case. In addition, in the case of the sales of 200,000 won and 10,000 won for each of the above 3 entertainment taverns, it was calculated by the method of calculating the sales of 10,000 won for each of the above 10,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won and 30,000 won for each of the above 10,000 won and 4,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won and 10,000 won for each of the above 20,000 won and 10,000 won for each of the above 3,010,000 won and 3,00 won for each of these two entertainment barss.

(3) Furthermore, according to each of the instant facts charged, the Defendant’s share-related arguments on the entertainment tavern of this case is examined as follows: (a) in the case of the part of the instant charges concerning the Defendant’s evasion of income tax in the year 2010-2014, the prosecutor considers the X-cell files under the name of the FR shares in the preparation of AE in charge of the accounting of the entertainment tavern of this case as core evidence; (b) whether the Defendant et al. owns the instant entertainment tavern according to the respective shares (Defendant 50%, A and AD 20%, and C10%) stated therein; and (c) as a result of the Defendant et al.’s withdrawal from the joint operation relation of the entertainment tavern of “AD”, the share-related 20% of the said entertainment tavern belongs to the Defendant, who is the largest right holder; and (d) calculated the evaded tax amount on the premise that the Defendant had a share of 70% of the shares in the instant entertainment tavern of this case, the specific amount is recognized in the application form (2).

(Voting 2)

A person shall be appointed.

However, as seen in detail in C’s 10% shares of the entertainment drinking club in the instant case, it is deemed that not the right holder of the entertainment drinking club or the joint proprietor of the instant entertainment drinking club, but the employee was paid while working at the entertainment drinking club in the instant case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the other party to a disposition imposing income tax or is liable to pay income tax pursuant to the nominal share ratio, unless there are other special circumstances where one right holder in the same business relationship withdraws from the same business relationship, the shares are attributed to the remaining partners according to their share ratio. Thus, as long as there is no evidence by the prosecutor on the circumstances where the defendant can succeed to 20% shares of the said AD that he left in the same business relationship, the defendant and the 20% share holder of the instant entertainment drinking club in the instant case are jointly operating the entertainment drinking club in the instant case according to their share ratio, and the defendant is also liable to pay income tax according to the legitimate ratio of shares under A’s 27/7 of the income tax (the same shall apply to the following ratio of shares).

[Attachment 3]

A person shall be appointed.

However, in the above Table 2 where the prosecution of this case was instituted, it is apparent that both the defendant and the part A are within the scope of the amount of tax evaded as stated in the above Table 3, which is calculated on the basis of their legitimate equity ratio recognized by the court as above. Thus, even if the defendant recognizes the defendant as having evaded all of the amount of tax evaded as stated in this part of the facts charged, it cannot be deemed unlawful because the calculation of the amount of tax evaded as it is excessive. Thus, this part of the argument is rejected.

3. The part on Defendant A’s third-party brain acquisition

A. Summary of the argument

There is no fact that the Defendant received cash of KRW 10 million, KRW 30 million, and KRW 40 million in total on two occasions at a place specified in this part of the facts charged to deliver to police officers from AM at the date specified in this part of the facts charged.

B. Determination

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence of this case, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he received money and valuables two times, knowing that the defendant was a bribe delivered by AM operating the entertainment tavern at the time to the police officers in order to make a solicitation for crackdown on illegal business. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

1) First of all, AM received a promise from the Defendant who was engaged in the business related to the taxation of entertainment taverns "N on May 2010" from the Prosecutor's Office and this court on the process of delivering money and valuables, and from the Defendant who was in charge of the business related to the said entertainment taverns, the head of the Gangseo-nam Police Station QV AT, providing control information, and offering control over the said entertainment taverns, so I would like to make up for the amount of KRW 10 million,00,000,000,000,000 won to BA who is an accounting employee, and then issued a direction to prepare for the above amount of KRW 10,000,000,000,000 won to the Defendant at the 'AP' restaurant of the said entertainment taverns, and then sent it to the Defendant, and then, the Defendant should be placed in the 'AS' book to the extent of KRW 3,000,000,000,000.

2) Furthermore, as to the process during which AM obtained control information from the Defendant, the Defendant stated that “AL hotel will be issued a search and seizure warrant for the entire “AL hotel” from AS on the following day after the Defendant received 10 million won from 23:30,000 won,” and that “AL hotel will be issued with a search and seizure warrant for the entire “AL hotel”. It was called that a search and seizure warrant for one-month from AS should be executed once again after 1 month from 1S, but it was called that “AL search and seizure warrant should not be executed once again.” On June 2010, 2010, the Defendant and the employees of the Gangnam Police Station Team and the violent Team did not know about theme to regulate the time, and it is difficult to dismiss the entire employees’ statement to the effect that the entire employees’ statements are inconsistent with the above, including those of the Defendant and the entire employees’ statements to the extent that they were not able to be able to be compared to the employees’ 20 minutes.”

3) Furthermore, in the prosecutor's office and this court, "BI", a person in charge of accounts of entertainment tavern operated by AM, stated to the effect that "AM contains cash of 2 million or more to 30 million won in black plastic bags or shopping bags, and distributed it to AM in the account book after cash delivery," and "AY of former police officers with work experience with AS also came to receive information on AS and SY's entertainment tavern control from the defendant on the first and second of June 2010, and AM was proposed to do so in the vicinity of the place of assembly as well as near the place of assembly." In fact, the above AS is also a substitute for the statement about the situation at the time of AM and the objective warrant of 201, which is the first and second of the Seoul District Prosecutor's Office, and it is also an objective warrant of 20,000's first and second of May 31, 2010."

4) On this issue, the Defendant argues to the effect that police officers and man-made AM had no reason to grant money and valuables through the Defendant. However, it is sufficient to view that AM attempted to make a crackdown solicitation through the Defendant’s personal relationship with police officers, and that it is sufficient to view that AM attempted to make a crackdown solicitation, since it is sufficiently persuasive as the Defendant’s aforementioned explanation is also not persuasive, since AM’s prosecutorial statement, etc. to the effect that “AM was friendly with the Defendant, but the Defendant was trying to transfer money and valuables through his or her relationship with it.”

Reasons for sentencing

In determining the specific punishment against the Defendants, in addition to all the kinds of sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, means and result of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, as set forth below, even in addition to the major circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the Defendants as set forth below, the sentencing guidelines for the Defendant A and B to whom the sentencing guidelines apply are set up

1. Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years and a fine not exceeding nine billion won, and 40 million won additionally collected;

(a) The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months but not more than 22 years and six months and a fine not less than 8,833,393,736 won but not more than 22,083,484,340 won;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for not less than four years but not more than 22 months; and

1) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (Tax)

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (not less than one billion won but less than 20 billion won) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Tax Offenses

The Prosecutor's argument that there is a planned and organized crime that is not a person with a special interest is rejected.

[Recommendation Area and Penalties] Basic Area ( Imprisonment of not less than four years but not more than six years)

2) Part concerning the crime of acquiring third-party brain;

[Determination of Type of Bribery] Type 2 (30 million won to less than 50 million won) of Bribery

[Special Sentencings] Mitigations: None of them, and where solicitations are illegal or illegal in relation to the execution of duties.

[Recommendation Area and Penalty] Aggravation ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than three years)

3) The violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[Determination of Punishment] General Types 1 (not more than 300 million won) shall be applicable to tax offenses.

The Prosecutor's argument that there is a planned and organized crime that is not a person with a special interest is rejected.

[Recommendation Area and Punishment] Basic Area ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than ten months)

4) Handling concurrent crimes: Determination of the scope of punishment by aggregating 1/2 of the upper limit of the third-party brain acquisition crime and 1/3 of the upper limit of the violation of the Punishment of Specific Crimes Act (tax), which are the basic crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax), from four to seven years, and a month shall be discarded.

5) Since the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc.) for which the sentencing guidelines are set without setting the sentencing guidelines is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit shall be based on the lower limit of the range of sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the crime for which the sentencing guidelines are set (the upper limit is not set separately, and it shall be based on the sentencing limit).

(c) Major circumstances

【Along with the fact that there is no criminal history beyond the same or suspended sentence for the Defendant, at least actively involved or did not seem to have actively participated in the acts of arranging sexual traffic, etc. of the entertainment tavern in this case, the Defendant was in exclusive charge of the tax-related affairs of the entertainment tavern in this case. A large amount of tax evasion amounting to KRW 8.3 billion by using various various methods for about 2 years and 5 months, thereby impairing the national tax collection order and seriously damaging tax justice. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any effort to pay taxes evaded and resolve the tax by omitting cash sales parts. However, even though the Defendant did not have any effort to pay and resolve the tax so far, the Defendant operated the entertainment tavern in the form of so-called “salpyp,” which is a joint business owner of the entertainment tavern in this case, and operated the entertainment tavern in the form of “an entertainment tavern,” which is one of his accomplices, thereby doing business of arranging commercial traffic, and performing various illegal acts, such as regulating the relationship between the lessee and the proprietor on the ground that he was externally and performing his duty of regulatinging it.

2. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and a fine of 14 billion won.

(a) The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months but not more than 22 years and six months and a fine not exceeding 13,642,67,921 won but not more than 34,106,69,802 won;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than six months but not more than five years and not more than four months;

1) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (Tax)

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (not less than one billion won but less than 20 billion won) tax evasion under the Special Cases concerning Tax Offenses

[Special Contributor] Reduction element: A prosecutor's assertion that there is no special aggravation of a crime in a case where an intentional tax evasion is committed, a self-denunciation or aggravating element; and a prosecutor's assertion that there is no special aggravation of a crime in a planned organized manner is rejected)

[Recommendation Areas and Penalties] Reduction Areas (where there are two or more special mitigations, between two and half years of imprisonment, or between five years of imprisonment, or where there are two or more special mitigations, however, the lower limit of the Recommendation Punishment is the same as the lower limit of the legal penalty, and thus, it will not further make a special adjustment of the recommended sentence scope)

2) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[Determination of Punishment] General Types 1 (not more than 300 million won) shall be applicable to tax offenses.

[Special Contributor] Reduction element: A prosecutor's assertion that there is no special aggravation factor in the case of an intentional tax evasion, a self-denunciation, or an aggravated element (the prosecutor's assertion that there are special aggravation factor in the planned systematic crime is not acceptable).

[Recommendation Areas and Penalties] Reduction Areas (no more than 8 months of imprisonment)

3) 1/2 of the upper limit of the violation of the Punishment of Specific Crimes Act (tax) shall be added to the upper limit of the violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(c) Major circumstances

【A, who is an accomplice, appears to have led to the crime of tax evasion in the circumstances of the instant crime. The Defendant merely accepted tax-related duties to A, and there is room to regard it as a crime of tax evasion. Although the crime of arranging sexual traffic in the instant entertainment tavern is not concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is currently pending in the appellate court after having been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for 1 year and 6 months, and the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the prosecution with his intention to assume responsibility for responding to his mistake after committing the instant crime, as well as to actively cooperate with the investigation. In order to raise school expenses for the same student, the Defendant seems to be going against the young amusement industry, going against the idea that he will not make the same student go against the duty of tax evasion. Rather, the instant crime of arranging sexual traffic in the instant entertainment tavern is not in a concurrent relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, the Defendant did not have to be punished by a fine exceeding the age of his wife and wife, and his wife and wife were the most.

[Unjustifiable circumstances] The crime of tax evasion of this case was committed by the defendant jointly operating the entertainment tavern of this case, which is a primary entertainment business owner, as the largest right holder, and the defendant has evaded a large amount of tax exceeding 13.64 billion won in total over four years, and thus, the crime is serious; furthermore, the crime of this case where various methods of tax evasion were mobilized, which led to the crime of this case where the national tax collection order has been disturbed; furthermore, even though the tax justice has been seriously damaged, the defendant did not make any effort to pay and resolve evaded taxes until now; further, the defendant did not take full charge of tax-related duties and did not know himself at all; and it is judged that it is extremely insufficient to take full charge of his responsibility; although the defendant was already punished for the crime of arranging sexual traffic; despite the fact that the defendant had the record of being punished for the crime of arranging sexual traffic, the crime of tax evasion of this case has been committed in the course of operating the entertainment tavern of this case in the form of "the so-called sexual traffic arranging".

3. Defendant C: One year of imprisonment.

(a) The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for not more than seven years;

(b) Major circumstances;

In addition, the Defendant appeared to have a strong attitude of reflective to the prosecution around June 20, 2013. In the process of the trial of the instant case, the Defendant’s participation in the crime was insignificant because it is merely an employee who manages women’s entertainment establishments and received business allowances or benefits at the entertainment drinking house of this case. The degree of participation in the crime is the most serious stress caused by the instant heavy stress, and the wife who is under medical treatment with the baby and baby need to care or continuous treatment. The Defendant’s act of arranging sexual traffic is deemed to have a strong view to not repeating the crime by using the past and the custom of the instant case, and thus, it is necessary to take advantage of the order of the Seoul Central District Court under the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. for the purpose of destroying the order of the instant entertainment drinking facilities by taking advantage of the fact that the Defendant might not be subject to the punishment of sexual traffic during the period of imprisonment with prison labor of this case without prison labor of this case. It is also necessary for the Defendant to take advantage of the order of sexual traffic of this case.

4. Defendant D: Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and two years of a stay of execution;

(a) The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for not more than eight years;

(b) Major circumstances;

A favorable normal defendant is currently aware of his mistake, and there was no criminal history exceeding fine during that period, and even in this case, the degree of his participation can be taken into account, such as the defendant's overall management of water or entertainment receptionist, etc., rather than leading a tort, and it seems that he did not refuse the request of water B, etc. while working for the entertainment drinking house in this case and allowed the use of the name of the business operator. It seems that there is a female-friendly tool who promised to marry in this year, there is a woman-friendly father who is currently being hospitalized with the mother who was hospitalized due to symptoms without heavy symptoms, etc., and the mother who was hospitalized in this case should be seen as having been fluenited with the parent who was hospitalized in this case, and that he want to have the last effect for the parent without re-offending and want to do so, and even in normal circumstances, the entertainment drinking house in this case is immediately subject to the entertainment drinking house in this case by the defendant.

A. Although there was a history of punishment for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) by which a fine is imposed together with C, the crimes of this case are committed in the same manner without being opened, and the crimes of this case are committed in the same manner, such as allowing another person to register the business of entertainment tavern under his/her name for the purpose of evading taxes in the process of tax evasion, and there is a high possibility of criticism by the Defendant, such as encouraging the commercialization of sex through each of the crimes of this case, and making it difficult to regulate illegal business

The acquittal portion

1. The part concerning Defendant A’s aiding and abetting an offender

A. Summary of the facts charged

On May 16, 2012, around 22:30 on May 16, 2012, the Defendant had the instant entertainment tavern under the control of the police due to the suspicion of arranging sexual traffic, and in fact, despite being the actual business owner, the Defendant had the U.S., who is a business owner in the name of the Defendant, be exempted from criminal punishment by having him/her engage in the actual business as if he/she were the actual business owner.

After that, on June 19, 2012, the Defendant discussed the measures along with B, a joint proprietor of the police station, and sought from B, “The police demanded U to attend the police station, but the fine demands U to undergo an investigation at the police station.” At that time, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that he/she is the actual owner of the instant entertainment drinking house, and that he/she is the actual owner of the instant entertainment drinking house, at the coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, but notified U of the content of his/her statement at the police station, such as the instant entertainment drinking house business method, etc., on June 19, 2012.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with B to assist U in escape.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The Defendant did not directly induce U to make a false statement to the effect that he is the actual owner of the entertainment tavern in this case.

B. Determination

1) First, according to the U’s legal statement and the second protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor’s interrogation of the witness B, the Defendant: (a) lent the U’s name introduced by BH around September 27, 201; (b) completed business registration of the entertainment tavern; and (c) the business name was maintained until May 22, 2012; (c) however, as the instant entertainment tavern was controlled by the Seoul Gangnam Police Station around May 16, 2012, the Defendant and B discussed countermeasures against the crime of arranging sexual traffic; (d) on the other hand, U stated that he was the actual owner of the said entertainment tavern; and accordingly, U was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million by the Seoul Central District Court on January 8, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court.

2) However, on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., U., from the prosecution to the prosecution of this Court, i.e., from the prosecution to the prosecution of this Court, she met BH, which was located in the coffee shop at the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, before undergoing an investigation by the police, and she made a statement to the court as the actual president because he paid a fine instead. When lending the name of the business owner, she only appears to have opened the defendant with BH, and there is no contact or contact with the defendant later. This U’s statement is consistent with the specific contents, and it is impossible to find out any other obvious motive to make a false statement. Meanwhile, it seems that the defendant's statement was not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant made a false statement to the prosecution of this part of this case, as well as that there is no possibility that he made a false statement to the prosecution of this part of this case, and that he made a false statement to the prosecution of this part of this case, and that he made a false statement to the prosecution of this part of this case.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) and Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by Defendant C

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, in collusion with AE and AF in charge of the accounting work of the instant entertainment drinking club from August 2010 to December 2012, when operating the instant entertainment drinking club from around August 2010, the Defendant: (a) under the criminal facts No. 1-A, concealed the actual owner of the instant entertainment drinking club by forging the name of each business operator of the instant entertainment drinking club; and (b) paid a service fee to female entertainment receptionist; (c) was confirmed by the receipt of the service fee in accordance with the relevant statutes; and (d) was required to withhold 5% of the amount of the service fee in the relevant service fee payment ledger; (e) concealed the service fee payment transaction without taking such measures as above; and (e) destroyed the account book capable of verifying daily sales; and (e) made a false report on the reduction of the sales amount by reducing the sales amount received in cash from the proprietor of the said entertainment drinking club and the credit sales amount received from the account.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with A, B, etc., evaded each tax of KRW 3,231,08,60,869,790 in total in 2011, and the total amount of KRW 3,231,08,618 in total in 2012, and KRW 1,317,089,228 in total in 2013, 7,857,118,499 in total, as described in the following table 4 in collusion with A, B, etc.

Table 4)

A person shall be appointed.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

In the instant entertainment tavern, the Defendant received multiple wages from Company B, which is a business activity managing female entertainment reception reception workers, and did not have invested in the instant entertainment tavern or operated the said main points jointly with Company B, etc., and in fact did not receive 10% shares of the instant entertainment tavern from Company B, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed a crime of tax evasion in collusion with Company B, etc.

C. Determination

1) First, according to the Defendant’s legal statement, part of AE and AF’s protocol of interrogation of the first prosecutor’s protocol against the Defendant, part of ICR’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendant, and the record of X-cell file output, etc., the Defendant, along with B, was in charge of entertainment entertainment bars in the “BF operated by AM,” and then, the “BF” was unable to continue to engage in entertainment business due to the control of the police, and it was acknowledged that he, from August 2010, he was aware that he would not exceed 10% of the shares in entertainment tavern “R” with B, and that he would have consented thereto.

2) On the other hand, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the instant evidence, it is insufficient to view that the facts charged on the premise that the Defendant is a joint owner of the entertainment drinking club as a 10% right holder of the instant entertainment drinking club and the other evidence submitted by the Prosecutor are insufficient to deem that the facts charged were proven without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

A. In other words, the Defendant had invested KRW 100 million in 'BF' at the time of working in 'BF', but the Defendant did not have contributed to the investment of 'R' in the case of 'R', but did not engage in the business of soliciting entertainment visitors and managing other business affairs. The Defendant did not participate in the core decision-making process, such as setting the operating method of 'R' and settling the profits and losses of 10% of the said shares. The Defendant did not receive profits equivalent to 10% of the said shares once.

B. From the prosecution to this court, the Defendant invested 100 million won at the time of running an entertainment tavern, but was unable to recover the investment money at all, the Defendant stated that B gave up 10% of 10% of her own concern and did not know whether he was in charge of his business or the share of joint operators, and did not participate in any tax issue at all. The Defendant consistently stated that “The business officer he managed by her was 50 million won per capita and received 20 million to 3 million won from B several times.”

C. Meanwhile, the prosecutor stated that "B made it difficult for the defendant to make economic difficulties, and there is no distribution of profits by recognizing 10% shares of 10%," and this court stated that the defendant cannot be viewed as the actual operator of an entertainment drinking house, and in this court, S also stated that "the defendant shall be regarded as the employee, and the defendant shall be regarded as the actual operator of an entertainment drinking house," and the above statement is supported by B's statement by stating that "The defendant shall be regarded as the employee, and the defendant shall know well the reasons why he is in this position."

D. In addition, the money withdrawal and payment prepared by the AF in charge of the actual accounting affairs of the entertainment drinking club of this case are indicated as follows: "C salary 3,000" as of June 29, 2012, "C salary 3,000" as of July 27, 2012, "C salary 3,000" as of August 30, 198, and "C salary 3,000" as of November 26, 190. Thus, it is confirmed that the Defendant was regularly paid the amount equivalent to three million won per month from the entertainment drinking house of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since all of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it is not guilty against the Defendants under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The assistant judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Yang Young-young

Judges Park Jae-min

1) Defendant C and D are the facts constituting the act of arranging sexual traffic in the instant entertainment tavern from around August 2010 to July 14, 201, and on May 2, 2012 at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Defendant C to imprisonment for one year and a fine of eight million won, respectively, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on May 10, 2012. The facts constituting the instant act of arranging sexual traffic against the said Defendants are subject to the crime from May 11, 2012 to December 2012, 2012, which is after the said judgment became final and conclusive.

2) Article 61 (Calculation of Value-Added Tax Act)

(3) Where an entrepreneur supplies food and accommodation services or personal services, and the service charges of employees (including free-income earners) received along with the price are written separately from the price in a tax invoice, receipt, credit card sales slip, etc. under Article 46 (1) of the Act, and it is confirmed that the service charges are paid to the relevant employee, the service charges shall not be included in the value of supply: Provided, That this shall not apply where the entrepreneur appropriates the service charges in his/her income.

Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Individual Consumption Tax Act

(1) The terms used in the Individual Consumption Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) or this Decree shall be defined as follows:

8. The term "charges for entertainment and food" means the amount received by an operator of a taxable entertainment place from a person who provides entertainment and food, whatever the name may be, in the form of food charges, tobacco charges, or other amounts received from the person who provides entertainment and food: Provided, That where the amount received includes the service charges for employees (including free-income earners), the service charges shall be stated separately in the tax invoice, receipt credit card sales slip, or debit card receipt under the Value-Added Tax Act, and where it is confirmed that the service charges have been paid to the relevant employee, the service charges shall not be included in the charges for entertainment and food, but where the operator of the taxable entertainment place appropriates the service charges in his/her income, such service charges shall be

0 Matters to be observed by business operators who intend to exclude service charges from the tax base (Public Notice of the National Tax Service No. 2001-17)

1. A business operator who wishes to exclude service charges from sales pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall pay service charges in a state in which service charges are recorded separately at the time when credit card sales slip, etc. are delivered;

2. The business operator liable to withhold the income tax on service charges pursuant to Article 127 (1) 7 of the Income Tax Act and Article 184-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall prepare a service charge payment ledger in a separate form, and keep it for 5 years together with the receipt for business income withholding on service charges under Article 164 (1) 7 of the Income Tax Act.

3. In the above service charge payment ledger, the recipient of the service charge shall confirm and sign the fact of direct receipt, and shall enter the name, resident registration number, address, etc. of the recipient of the service charge in the margin of a copy of his/her resident registration certificate or driver's license, etc. by each recipient of the service charge in his/her own pen and keep the signature to be used in the service charge payment ledger for five years so that he/she can confirm that the recipient is the signature of the recipient;

4. Where a person who receives service charges refuses to sign the service charge payment ledger, or refuses to prepare a written confirmation, etc., a business operator shall enter the receipt for payment without passbook, etc. in lieu of other evidence to directly verify the payment.