The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the act of fraud and other unlawful act as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to the act of fraud and other unlawful act due to the evasion of corporate tax, and it cannot be said that it simply fails to report under the tax law or makes a false report. The defendant did not have an active and intentional intent to evade corporate tax as stated in the facts charged at the time of the instant case.

B) Since J, a stock company operated by the Defendant, did not have any income, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant evaded each corporate tax recorded in this part of the facts charged, and there exist grounds for recognizing the objectivity and rationality of each amount of tax evaded based on the presumption calculation recognized by the lower court. Accordingly, each tax liability listed in this part of the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been established. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have evaded this part of the facts charged. (2) The Defendant is not a person liable to pay capital gains tax on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the evasion of capital gains tax. (b) The Defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of tax evasion in this part. (b) The Defendant conspired with co-defendants

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the evasion of corporate tax

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, asserts that the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part is identical to that of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, under the title 1, “determination on the Defendant’s assertion”.

The judgment of the court below on this part of the defendant's assertion was rejected, and the judgment of the court below is compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined.