The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in relation to the crime of tax evasion as stipulated in Article 9 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 8 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010), the term "Fraud or other unlawful act" means an act which makes it possible to evade tax and which is recognized as unlawful by social norms, i.e., an act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect tax, and it does not constitute a simple act of failing to report under tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003). However, in the method of imposing and paying income tax, if a taxpayer subject to taxation establishes a tax claim and constitutes an "Fraud or other unlawful act" as a means of tax evasion.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s determination on the following facts: (a) based on the adopted evidence, the Defendant: (b) ordered a tax accountant to estimate income in order to conceal the contents of interest income with the borrower and the content of loan contracts, etc. despite the full knowledge of the content of interest income; (c) although the Defendant had to record and keep the account books by double entry bookkeeping so that all transactions related to the business can be objectively identified pursuant to the Income Tax Act, the Defendant did not prepare the account books from the beginning; and (c) the Defendant used 14 borrowed accounts in the name of an employee or a person who is a former borrower in performing financial transactions with the borrower and the former borrower; and (d) cash and cash with the former.