Whether the provisions of Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (including the proviso) shall apply to the case of aggravated punishment for the crime as provided in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

In the case of aggravated punishment for crimes provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act under Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it would be reasonable to regard the provisions of Article 3 (including the proviso) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as applicable.

Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax

A and five others

B

Prosecutor (the defendant before the defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 72No792 delivered on March 29, 1973

All appeals are dismissed.

(A) First of all, the appeal by the Prosecutor of the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office is examined as grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor.

(1) As to the first part of the facts charged in this case against Defendant A, C, D, and E, the lower court found that there was no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of experience by violating the rules of experience or logical rules and violating the rules of evidence against Defendant F and B, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant F and B, 25% of the amount of liquor tax evasion for 300,000 disease, and 300,000 copies of the certificate of completion of liquor tax payment against Defendant F and B, and the preparation of false public documents among the facts charged in this case against Defendant G and the facts charged in this case against Defendant G were found not guilty.

(2) On the second ground of Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it is reasonable to regard the provisions of Article 3 (including the proviso) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as applicable even in the case of aggravated punishment for the crime under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Therefore, the court below's decision on the above premise is just and there is no erroneous ground for the interpretation of the above-mentioned related Acts, as alleged in the attack of arguments.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the theory from the viewpoint of opposition.

(B) Next, with respect to Defendant B’s appeal, the Defendant did not enter the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and the Defendant did not submit the grounds of appeal after the lapse of the prescribed period.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Articles 390 and 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)