(a) The time when crimes of tax evasion are committed, in case where the tax base or tax amount has been underreported;

(b) Notification given to tax evasion offenders violating Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

C. Summary of determination on the assertion of self-denunciation

(a) Where the tax base or tax amount is evaded by false and underreporting, the tax evasion crime shall be constituted upon the expiration of the payment period, and even if a revised return was filed after the payment period, it may not affect the establishment of the completed tax evasion crime.

B. According to Article 16 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, a public prosecution against a tax offense falling under Article 8 of the said Act does not require any accusation. Since a tax official does not have the authority to take a notification disposition with respect to a crime of tax evasion in violation of Article 8 of the said Act, even if a criminal defendant paid a penalty upon a notification by a tax official, it does not affect the wife of the violation (crime of tax evasion)

(c) Reduction or exemption of punishment by self-denunciation is a matter belonging to the discretion of the court, and matters concerning mitigation or exemption are not necessarily required to be indicated in the judgment.

(a) Articles 8 and 16 (c) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Do3961 delivered on March 22, 197, 83Do2540 delivered on March 12, 1985. Supreme Court Decision 81Do1737 delivered on November 23, 1982. Supreme Court Decision 80Do35 delivered on February 26, 1980, 83Do503 delivered on April 12, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 84Do3042 delivered on March 12, 1985

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yang Young-tae, Lee Sung-soo

Gwangju High Court Decision 86No708 delivered on April 16, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the facts constituting the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or rules of evidence as to the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the application of the law to the so-called measures taken by the court below by applying Article 8 (1) 1 and Article 8 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

2. If the tax base or tax amount has been falsely underreported and thus evaded a tax, the crime of tax evasion shall be constituted upon the expiration of the payment period, and even if a revised return was filed after the payment period, it shall not affect the establishment of the crime of tax evasion completed. Thus, even if the defendant filed a revised return on the tax base or tax amount of corporate tax for the business year 1983 (from January 1, 1984 to December 31, 1983), corporate tax for the business year 1983, special consumption tax for the business year 1983, and special consumption tax for the first and second business years 1983, even if the revised return on the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax had already arrived after the expiration of the payment period, it may not be deemed that the court below erred by recognizing the whole so-called 1 of the defendant's original adjudication as the result of the crime of tax evasion.

3. According to Article 16 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, a public prosecution against a tax offense case falling under Article 8 of the above Act does not require any accusation by a tax official, and this case does not require any accusation by a tax official. In addition, since a tax official does not have the authority to notify a tax official with respect to a crime of tax evasion in violation of Article 8 of the above Act, even if a defendant pays a penalty upon a tax official’s notice, it does not affect the wife of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment,

The issue is groundless.

4. Reduction or exemption of punishment by self-denunciation is a matter belonging to the court's discretion and does not necessarily require that matters concerning mitigation or exemption be stipulated in the judgment. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant did not reduce the punishment on the ground that the defendant's revised return of tax base and tax amount of 500 million won in the year 1983 should be deemed to have been filed by considering the revised return of tax base and tax amount.

5. In this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor punishment more than 10 years of imprisonment, the reason that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

6. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)