The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding 1) The Defendant received the payment by means of the E’s account, which is an employee with interest on the Republic of Korea. However, the Defendant merely used the borrowed account, and solely based on the fact that the Defendant used the borrowed account, the Defendant committed “the fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, there is no additional value tax between the use of the borrowed account and the tax evasion because one defendant does not file a tax return, and the defendant is not exempt from income due to the use of the borrowed account, so there is no causal relationship between the use of the borrowed account and the tax evasion.

2) Since the portion of the facts charged in the instant case, which was not issued with a tax invoice, is not specified in the facts charged, a judgment dismissing a public prosecution ought to be rendered pursuant to Article 327 Subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3) ① A disposition of notice under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act cannot be deemed to be interrupted by the statute of limitations. ② Even if the statute of limitations is interrupted due to the disposition of notice, the instant notice given to the Defendant is not specifically stated in the grounds for the disposition, and the Defendant was given a notice without making an accusation immediately even though the Defendant was unable to pay, and thus, Article 17 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act stated that the instant notice disposition violates Article 9(3) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but it appears to be erroneous in Article 17 of the same Act.

The violation of this Act shall be deemed to be illegal.

Thus, as part of the facts charged in the instant case, 2017 Highest 5316, which was the prosecution after the expiration of the statute of limitations, a public prosecution has been instituted after the lapse of the statute of limitations, the judgment of acquittal shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal

4) Of the facts charged in the instant case, regarding the part on tax evasion, ① the part on value-added tax evasion, as the Defendant failed to collect value-added tax from the other party to the transaction, thereby taking tax back.

As such, it cannot be seen.