208 Height7499 Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

United StatesA (31years, South Korea)

Yellow Seas

Law Firm Samduk

Attorney Kim Ba-young

October 7, 2009

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 56 million won. If the Defendant does not pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

Criminal facts

The defendant is the owner of a building located in Busan-dong, Busan-dong and a rental business operator.

On January 25, 2004, the Defendant evaded value-added tax of KRW 1,902,952 by fraud or other unlawful means, such as not submitting a double contract and issuing a sales tax invoice with respect to the amount of rental income in the Busan Eastdong-gu, Busan, the Defendant evaded the total amount of value-added tax of KRW 42,345,743, total amount of global income tax of KRW 84,23,418, total amount of KRW 126,579,161, as shown in the annexed Table (Omission) with the global income tax return of KRW 23,801,444, as well as the global income tax return of KRW 23,803, total amount of value-added tax in 203.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness Kim C1, whiteC2, and Park C3;

1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement of the prosecutor Kim C1 prepared by the prosecutor;

1. Each letter of answer (as against thisC4, Note 5, Park C3), written confirmations

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each real estate lease agreement, such as a written accusation, a closed statement of investigation rules, a copy of account books (Evidence Records No. 360 through 375), the details of transactions by the accused bank, each item of transactions by the accused, each item of correction of value-added tax,

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The amount of fine of KRW 56 million (in the case of fines for violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall be added to fines for each crime, on the grounds that the provisions of Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act are not applied under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) (i.e., the second quarter of 2003, the second quarter of 2004, the amount of fines of KRW 2 million in total + the second quarter of 200,000 + the second quarter of 204, the first quarter of 2005, the second quarter of 2006, the second quarter of 2006, the second quarter of 2007, the second quarter of 2007, the second quarter of 2007, the amount of fines of KRW 14 million in total + the amount of fines of KRW 2 million in total for each year, 203, 2005, and 4 million in total.

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Judgment on the defense counsel's assertion under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act and the grounds for sentencing

The defendant's defense counsel asserts to the effect that the crime of this case constitutes a mere non-report, and does not constitute fraud or other unlawful acts under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

In full view of all the evidence in the judgment, the defendant prepared a false lease agreement to the effect that there is no monthly rent agreement between the lessee and the lessee despite the fact that the lessee entered into a lease agreement with each other, and instigated the lessee to leave the lease agreement to the district tax office without stating such fact, and accordingly, the lessee submitted a false lease agreement to the district tax office at the district tax office. Accordingly, the lessee submitted a false lease agreement to the effect that there is no monthly rent agreement under the lease agreement that he/she entered into with the tax office upon receiving an investigation from the tax office regarding the Defendant’s tax evasion. In relation to the lease of the building as stated in the judgment, the defendant intentionally omitted the sales amount while filing a final return on the sales tax return with the lessee, and the defendant’s act constitutes fraudulent means or other active acts to evade the value-added tax and the income tax. Therefore, the defense counsel’s assertion is without merit.

2. Although a former certified tax accountant who was from a tax official with reasons for sentencing committed a tax evasion offense as stated in its holding, a request for a trial seeking the revocation of a disposition of taxation was made for the reason that the tax office denies the investigation, prosecution investigation, and this court did not have any agreement on monthly rent for the tax imposed pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and a request for a trial seeking the revocation of the disposition of taxation was made for the concealment of the crime, and a false lease contract was made again made in order to conceal the crime, and it was impossible to find out that the tax official in charge demands money in the name of the tax investigation, etc., it should be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor. However, the defendant is selected by a fine in consideration of the age of 78, but the defendant is subject to a fine in all the above circumstances, taking into account the circumstances where the defendant paid the full amount of the amount of tax evaded

Judges Park Gyeong-young