The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that the defendant, alone, engaged in the bond business, collected the loan by calculating the interest on the basis of the loan certificate or the particulars stated in the passbook received from the debtor, and stated the loan details on the simple camera, but operated by the method of returning the loan certificate or the note received in return and destroying the note, the defendant cannot be deemed to have actively concealed or discarded the account books related to the credit business beyond the report or false report, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have actively concealed or discarded the relevant documents even in relation to the lease proceeds. The court below acquitted the defendant on the charges of this case that the defendant evaded the tax by "Fraud or other unlawful act".

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept. A.

“Fraud or other unlawful act” in the crime of tax evasion under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) refers to the act of enabling the tax evasion and other unlawful act which is recognized as unlawful by social norms, i.e., deceptive scheme which makes the imposition and collection of taxes impossible or considerably difficult.

Therefore, even though it does not constitute a mere failure to report under the tax law or making a false report without accompanying other acts, in cases where the situation where active concealment intention appears, such as failure to report or underreporting the taxable object and intentional omission of import or sale in the account book, etc., is added, it can be recognized that the imposition and collection of taxes are impossible or remarkably difficult.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13829 Decided February 21, 2014).