[1] Whether a tax official who was not designated by the chief public prosecutor of the competent public prosecutor's office as a person eligible to investigate an offence case has the authority to take a disposition of notification or accusation under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders

[2] If a public official fails to faithfully perform his/her duties due to neglect, neglect, etc. or failure to perform his/her duties (negative)

[3] The case holding that the failure of a tax official to recommend a notification or accusation to his/her authorized person does not constitute a waiver of his/her duties

[1] Where a public official working at a tax office has not been designated by the head of the public prosecutor's office having jurisdiction over the tax office as a person eligible to investigate an offence case under Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the disposition of notification or accusation according to the result of investigation of an offence case shall only belong to the duties of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the director of a regional tax office

[2] When a public official under Article 122 of the Criminal Code abandons his duties without justifiable reasons refers to a case where he fails to perform his duties without justifiable reasons, such as food neglect or renunciation of duties. Thus, in a case where a public official fails to faithfully perform his duties due to neglect, loss, sense, etc., or where a public official fails to perform his duties formally or formally, the crime of abandonment of duties is not established.

[3] The case holding that even if a tax official, who is not authorized to take a disposition of notification or accusation, did not recommend the person with authority to take a disposition of notification or accusation according to the result of an investigation of an offence case, it cannot be deemed that he was not able to perform his duties in good faith in light of specific circumstances, and thus, he could not be deemed to have

[1] Articles 8 and 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Article 122 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article

[2] Supreme Court Decision 82Do2624 delivered on January 18, 1983 (Gong1983, 465), Supreme Court Decision 83Do157 delivered on December 13, 1983 (Gong1984, 215), Supreme Court Decision 83Do3260 delivered on March 27, 1984 (Gong1984, 852), Supreme Court Decision 93Do3568 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194, 10466)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Jeonju District Court Decision 96No492 delivered on October 7, 1996

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders enacted for the purpose of simple and prompt handling of tax offenses, a public official engaged in tax affairs (hereinafter referred to as a "tax official") may interrogate, seize or search a suspected criminal suspect or witness (Article 2), but when a tax official completes an investigation of offenses, he/she shall report it to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the commissioner of the regional tax office, or the head of the district tax office (the main sentence of Article 8). Accordingly, it is sufficient for a tax official to investigate an offense and report the contents thereof to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the commissioner of the regional tax office, the commissioner of the regional tax office, or the head of the district tax office, or the head of the district tax office, and as a result, to notify or file a complaint with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and as a result, the issue of whether to notify or file a complaint with the Commissioner of the regional tax office or the head of the district tax office belongs to the duties of the director of the regional tax office or the head of the district tax office. However, the proviso to Article 8 of the National Tax Service's Act does not request for appointment of a public official.

In addition, if the National Tax Service's investigation conducted on the "Guidelines for Regulation on Data Business" under Article 9 or 11-2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, a notification shall be made in accordance with Article 9 (1) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and if it falls under any of Articles 8, 9 (2) through (3), and 12 of the same Act, it is reasonable to view the above guidelines as the business process guidelines for tax officials with legitimate authority to handle tax-related offenses.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant working in the Gunsan District Prosecutors' Office has not been designated as a person who is able to investigate an offense case by the head of the former District Prosecutors' Office, which is the competent prosecutor's office, and that the defendant has no authority to make a notification or accusation under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Punishment of Tax Evaders

2. On the second ground for appeal

When a public official under Article 122 of the Criminal Code abandons his duties without justifiable reasons refers to a case where he fails to perform his duties without justifiable reasons, such as food, neglect or renunciation of duties. Thus, in a case where a public official fails to faithfully perform his duties due to neglect, loss, sense, etc., or where he fails to perform his duties formally or negligently, the crime of abandonment of duties is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do3568 delivered on February 8, 1994, etc.).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant was aware of the non-indicted 1's failure to report the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's failure to return the value-added tax, while he was in charge of the corporation's business related to the corporation's value-added tax, and was punished for general correction investigation on the Tae-company's non-indicted 1's failure to receive the false tax invoice from non-indicted 2 for the purpose of tax collection, and confirmed that the non-indicted 2 received the false tax invoice from the non-indicted 2 without real transaction, who was in charge of the non-indicted 2's failure to take measures such as notifying the person in charge of the non-indicted 2 of the exchange of the value-added tax and the additional tax on the non-indicted 2's failure to perform his duties. As such, the defendant found the non-indicted 1's evasion of the value-added tax and the additional tax on the non-indicted 1's failure to perform his duties in good faith.

The decision of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the abandonment of duties or incomplete deliberation. The grounds of appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)