Whether a green sugar is a taxable object provided for in the former Goods Tax Act;

The Defendants’ packaging of melted herb substances in their natural environment without chemical and physical processing by subdividing them into medicinal herbss. If they do not belong to any of the types, such as the dosages of general rules, liquid agents, etc. as referred to in the Pharmacopoeia by putting them in water, such acts do not constitute objects of taxation provided for in Article 1(1)4 of the former Goods Tax Act and subparagraph 5 of attached Table 1 of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act because they do not fall under any of the categories, such as melted herb drugs, etc., which are self-filled dys of liquid as provided for in Article 1(1)4 of the former Goods Tax Act and subparagraph 5 of attached Table 1 of the same Decree.

Class 4 of Article 1 (1) of the former Goods Tax Act, Article 1 [Attachment 1] 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Goods Tax Act

July 22, 1980, 80Nu38 decided Jul. 22, 1980 (Public Notice No. 641, 13088), Article 1 (1) 220 of the Goods Tax Act (Abolition)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court (77Gohap579)

Of the original judgment, the part of the original judgment excluding the facts charged as to the evasion of taxes by the defendant, etc. in the year 1973, the respective corporate tax in the year 1974, the goods tax in the year 1975, and the defense tax

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, the Defendants’ evasion of KRW 86,348,785, the defense tax of KRW 17,269,759, the tax evasion of KRW 52,275,235, and the defense tax of KRW 10,45,047 in the year 1977 is not guilty.

The appeal against the acquittal portion by the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

(1) The grounds for appeal against the guilty portion among the original judgment by Defendant 1, the first defendant did not commit the crime of this case, and even though the evidence cited by the court below alone is insufficient as guilty, the fact finding that he evaded the goods tax and defense tax in 1976 and 1977 was erroneous by misapprehending the rules of evidence. Second, according to the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the tax offense case should be investigated and prosecuted by the public prosecutor based on the materials investigated by the head of the tax office and the tax office, and the prosecution of this case should be filed by the public prosecutor on the basis of the result of independent investigation, so even though the prosecution of this case was erroneous in the procedure, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law and deliberation. Third, since the taxable period of the goods tax of this case is 1 month and the evaded tax amount of each taxable period is less than 5 million won, it does not constitute the requirements under Article 8 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and thus, the court below erred in the judgment of this case.

(2) First, while the court below rendered a judgment of innocence on the part of the facts charged in this case, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to prove that there is no evidence, and second, the judgment of acquittal is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts that affect the conclusion of the judgment, and second, the judgment of the defendant, etc. on the part that found the defendant guilty is too unreasonable

2. The facts charged in this case against the defendant, etc.

(1) Even though Defendant 1 manufactured and sold green gymnasium (1) and gymnasium (1) which are high-priced gymnasium drugs at the office of the above company located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (excluding the name omitted), from October 1, 1973 to May 31, 197, Defendant 1 manufactured and sold green gymnasium (1) which are high-priced gymnasium drugs, but 40 gymnasium drugs, which were low-priced gymnasium drugs, manufactured and sold green gymnasium gymnasium gymnasium, which were the same that gymnasium drugs were manufactured and sold by false declaration of taxable goods shipment and the payment period by each item

1. To evade corporate tax of 2,357,881 won during the period from October 1, 1973 to December 31 of the same year;

2. evades corporate tax of 19,651,542 won for one year from January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974;

3. The respective evasion of customs duties of 36,135,274 won and the said defense tax of 5,330,400 won during the period from June 1, 1975 to December 31, 1975;

4.For one year from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1976, evades customs duties of 86,348,785 won, defense tax of 17,269,759 won;

5.The respective evasion of customs duties of 52,275,235 won and 10,455,047 won for the period from January 1, 197 to May 31 of the same year;

(2) The defendant (name omitted) is that the defendant 1, who was the representative director at each of the above (1) places, has evaded each corporate tax and defense tax with respect to the company's business.

3. The judgment of the competent court.

(1) The point of evasion of customs duties and defense tax on goods;

A. From June 1, 1975 to May 31, 1977, the defendant, etc. manufactured and sold high melting sugar and gyeast (hereinafter referred to as "greening, etc.") and sold melting gyeast, etc., as if he falsely reported the removal of taxable goods, and evaded the tax and defense tax by using them as if he manufactured and sold melting gyeast, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "greening gyeast, etc."), according to the testimony at the trial after remand and the appraisal statement prepared by non-indicted 4, the above gyeast, etc. manufactured and sold by the defendant, etc. for the above period is not subject to the duty of 16 gyeast, etc. of natural environment where the defendant et al. did not make chemical and physical processing (see Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, e.g., g., g., g., gyeast 15 gyeast, etc., and the above gyeast 15 gyme.

B. Therefore, the part which the court below found a partial withdrawal of the goods duty and defense duty in the year 1976 and the year 1977 on the ground that the facts were acknowledged without any evidence, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence, is different from the party members, but is justified in its conclusion, and thus, the prosecutor's appeal as to this part is not accepted.

(2) The point of corporate tax evasion

From October 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974, the defendant et al. evaded corporate tax by making and selling low-priced large sugars, etc. and by filing a corporate tax assessment declaration as if they manufactured and sold large gifts with a reduced price (from October 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974). The corporate tax evasion period from October 1, 1973 to December 31, 197 shall be the corporate tax period, and from June 1, 197 to May 31, 197, the goods tax and the defense cell withdrawal period, etc. shall be the goods tax period).

A. Defendant 1 made and produced medicines in the name of the prosecutor (No. 5 pages 15 of the Investigation Record) at the prosecutor's office (No. 8 of July 197 and the suspect interrogation record) (No. 5 of the Investigation Record) with the permission for manufacture of the above medicines at the Ministry of Health and Welfare on October 16, 1963, and changed it into the representative director (title omitted) from October 1, 1973 to the (title omitted) and the annual production amount reaches KRW 50 million and KRW 90 million. (No. 2 of the Corporate Tax Period income) according to the evidence index book at southbuan (No. 40 of the Investigation Record), he made a statement to the effect that he made a false statement at the prosecutor's office (No. 300,000,000,0000 won and 300,0000,000 won and 300,000,000 won and 0,000).

B. According to each statement of Non-Indicted 5's prosecutor's office (the investigation records, 30, 39, 208 pages) which is an employee of the tax office affiliated with the facts charged and each statement of this case before and after remand to the court below (the trial records, 58, 382 pages), the defendant company's report on the release of taxable articles under its jurisdiction submitted to the Southern District Court for the period of corporate tax 27,909, 304, 304, 230, 1974, 2 overlapping 50, 574, 20's 591, 1974 and 10' 20's 20's 20's 20's 270' 270' 270' 270' 270' 270' 19727' 270' 2720' 270' 270' 2720' ' 197' 2720' ' 2720'20'

C. Non-indicted 6 (from October 1974 to August 20, 1974)'s statements made by the prosecutors' office (in investigation records 48 pages, 64 pages and 112 pages) of non-indicted 7 (from October 15, 1974 to August 20, 1976) who worked for the defendant company during the corporate tax period in the court below and the court below (in the trial records 64 pages, 112 pages), each statement made by the public prosecutor's office was sold to the outside market without being treated in the market, and Non-indicted 8's statements made by the witness from around November 1, 1974 to around March 1, 1975 (in the case of Non-indicted 9's investigation records) are merely about the price of sugar, etc., but the number of the witness's statements made by the public prosecutor's office after being able to make a large amount of 20-day list after being 10-day and 40-day statements made.

D. Examining the testimony of Non-Indicted 10 and Non-Indicted 12 (276 pages) of the witness at the trial of the court below (the trial records, the 85 pages, the 69 pages), and the statement of the verification protocol executed by the court of original instance, the defendant company may recognize the fact that the defendant company had manufactured 15-day continuing work on one 2,00 per month whenever it had manufactured 15-day interchange at any time at any time during the corporate tax period after printing at the printing office of the purification printing office of 1973 and 1975, respectively.

E. According to the statements and records of account books by the purification printing office, which printed the packaging packaging of celebroids and substitute celebs of the above facts in the above A, B, there is proof of the facts charged. However, the above evidence will not be direct evidence of the evasion of corporate tax in light of the service period of the above witnesses, the time of handling substitute celebs, etc., and the date and time of recording of account books, etc. (other witnesses are also the same) as it manufactured substitute celebrified celebs, etc. while manufacturing substitute celebs during the period of time of goods tax, etc.

F. Even if the confessions made by Defendant 1 at the prosecutor's office due to the series of circumstances mentioned above, the credibility as to the fact that the quantity of the product was false during the period of goods tax, etc. is set aside, and there is no other evidence to support the credibility of the portion of the corporate tax (which is doubtful as to the credibility of the confessions) and the contents of the confessions cannot be considered as evidence of guilt against the evasion of corporate tax because they are too vague and considerably specific, and there is no doubt as to the credibility of the portion of the corporate tax. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude that the portion of the confessions at the court of the court below is the corporate tax period. Thus, it is just that the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence as to the portion of the corporate tax, and there is no ground for appeal

4. Conclusion

Therefore, even though the facts charged against the defendant, etc. return to the absence of proof of crime, the original judgment which recognized the fact of evasion of part of the goods tax, etc. in 1976 and 1977 was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, and pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment, which was prosecuted for a blanket crime except for the fact of evasion of the goods tax, etc. in 1973 and 1974 and 1975 and was prosecuted by the court below among the original judgment, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, shall be reversed and decided again by a party member, and there is no reason to appeal the part of innocence.

The facts charged regarding the criminal defendant's tax on goods and defense tax in the year 1976 and the year 1977 are identical to the facts charged in the above paragraph 2, and there is no proof of a crime like the above statements, so the verdict of innocence is made in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Lee Young-man (Presiding Judge)