The nature of selling gas by gas retailers who pretend to be an end-user and tax evasion (affirmative)

If the defendant, who is a gas retailer, concealed that he/she directly supplies gas, and caused the gas wholesaler to issue a tax invoice to the end-user, such disguised act of the defendant constitutes fraud or other active misconduct that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect value-added tax, etc. on the defendant without simply failing to make business registration or report under tax law.

Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do337 Delivered on December 22, 1981

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu High Court Decision 81No347 delivered on June 8, 1982

The non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with respect to the facts charged of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the defendant, the "illegal act" referred to in Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to the act that is deemed to be unlawful by social norms by allowing the evasion of tax, and refers to the deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and the mere failure to file a registration and report under the tax law without accompanying any other act does not constitute unlawful act. Thus, the facts charged of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which merely did not require registration and report under the tax law, is not a crime, and the defendant is not guilty on the grounds that there is no other evidence to deem that

However, according to the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the Defendant did not merely state his/her business registration and report under the tax law. However, the Defendant, from September 197 to December 148, 197, who sold pro rata gas in the apartment complex by pretending to the safety management manager of the gas supply room located in the Nam-gu apartment complex, Nam-gu, Busan to purchase the pro rata gas at the agency price under the premise that he/she would have been actually aware of the liquid gas from the gas wholesale company and the gas wholesale company, etc. in Busan to June 30, 1980, and instead failed to report it to the relevant authorities, and there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do14822, Jan. 1, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12738, Jun. 30, 200).

Therefore, the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)