1. Time when the corporate tax and the business tax evasion offenses have been committed;

2. Application of the amended Acts prior to the amendment, because the lowest limit of the evaded tax amount is increased, and thus the said lower limit is below the lower limit; and

3. Principles for immediate accusation against one person who is suspected of committing a tax offense and for not making such accusation;

1. Corporate tax imposed and collected by a taxpayer’s declaration, the defense tax, and the business tax, in case where the taxpayer undergoes a return of the tax base within the due date for the return, even if the amount of the income and the amount of the transaction are underreported, the act of evasion committed upon the expiration of the due date for the decision or investigation of the government on the tax base

2. Since the amendment of Article 8(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes led to the increase of the lower limit of the evaded tax amount by the “not less than five million won per year” in the “not less than five million won per year” prior to the amendment, each act of tax evasion of less than twenty million won per year by the said Defendants cannot be punished pursuant to Article 8(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes before the amendment or amendment.

3.In case of immediate accusation under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it shall not be applied as a principle of non-payment of complaints in complaints subject to prosecution.

Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 8 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 8 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 9 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 12 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 32 of the Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 3099); Article 33 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 92 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 5 of the Defense Tax Act; Article 6 (1) of the Defense Tax Act; Article 29 of the

Supreme Court Decision 4293Do883 Decided January 11, 1962 (Article 233(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 10Do2824 Decided December 8, 1981, Article 80Do2824 (No. 293-type70, Article 674No. 184), Article 82Do276 Decided December 28, 1982 (No. 304-type 199, Article 699-392), Article 80Do902 Decided September 13, 1983 (Gong71519)

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Jeonju District Court (80 Gohap173)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and by a fine of 1,00,000 won, by imprisonment for eight months and by a fine of 10,00,00 won for Defendant 3 respectively.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

As to Defendant 1, 150 days of detention prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant 1 and 2 shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 3’s evasion of corporate tax of KRW 3,901,608, and KRW 780,320 from February 17, 1979 to July 6, 1979, and corporate tax of KRW 12,086,506, and corporate tax of KRW 2,417,301, and business tax of KRW 438,751 from April 1, 197 to February 20, 1978 are not guilty.

Of the facts charged in this case, from February 17, 1979 to July 6, 197 of the same year, Defendant 1 evaded value-added tax of KRW 2,498,179, corporate tax of KRW 3,901,608, and tax of KRW 780,320, and Defendant 1 and 2 conspired, from April 1, 197 to February 20, 1978, value-added tax of KRW 5,818,785, corporate tax of KRW 12,086,50, and corporate tax of KRW 2,417,301, business tax of KRW 438,756, tax of KRW 3,190,581, respectively, are dismissed.

The gist of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is that the punishment of the court below against the defendants is unfair because the defendants did not seem to be so long as it prevents them from evading large taxes and disturbing national law and order. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendants 1, 3 and their defense counsel is as follows: First, the defendant 1 did not have any conspiracy about the tax evasion of value-added tax, etc. at the time of original judgment and the embezzlement of the literature and art promotion fund; and the defendant 2 leased and managed the theater (title omitted) from April 1, 197 to March 31, 1978; since the defendant 1 and the defendant 3 did not participate in the above theater management, it was not actually liable to pay taxes; and even though there was no evidence to acknowledge it as to the total revenue revenue at the time of original judgment, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below was unlawful and it did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant 1 and the manager of the corporation.

According to the provisions of Article 9-3 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, in case of taxes imposed and collected by a taxpayer's declaration, offenses under the provisions of Article 9-3 of the same Act can be established upon the lapse of the time limit for payment after the Government's decision or investigation on the tax base concerned is made. Articles 32 and 33 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of Dec. 28, 1979) and Article 92 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 969 of Dec. 21, 1979) provide that when the taxpayer files a return on the tax base, the tax base and amount of corporate tax against the domestic corporation shall be determined or examined by the taxpayer's declaration under the provisions of Articles 26 through 28 of the Corporate Tax Act. In addition, considering the provisions of Article 33 (1) of the same Act, the provisions of Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that the tax base of the domestic corporation shall be imposed and collected by self-return.

In this case, from February 17, 1979 to July 6, 1979, Defendant 3 company (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant company”) did not report the tax base of the above corporation 3,901,60,320 won for corporate tax from April 1, 197 to February 20, 1978, and 12,086,500 won, and 2,417,301 won, and 438,756 won were evaded by the evidence of the court below's failure to report the tax base of the corporation 2,000,0000 won, which had no effect on the initial tax base of the corporation 2,000,000 won, and thus, it was found that the tax base of the corporation 2,07,000 won, which had no effect on the tax base of the corporation 3,901,000 won, were found to have been evaded by the court below's determination of tax evasion and punishment of the tax base.

In addition, according to the court below's ruling that defendant 1 violated the above Act 1,846,438 won, corporate tax 3,529 won, defense tax 5,601,872 won, and 3,190 won, and 4,000 won and 4,00 won and 7,00 won and 7,00 won and 9,00 won and 7,00 won and 9,00 won and 7,00 won and 9,00 won and 7,00 won and 8,00 won and 9,00 won and 7,00 won and 9,00 won and 7,00 won and 4,00 won and 9,000 won and 7,00 won and 5,00 won and 9,00 won and 5,00 won and 1,000 won and 8,07,00 won and 1,00 won and 2,00 won.

Therefore, the decision of the court below should be reversed ex officio and the decision shall be rendered again by the party members, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which does not require the determination of

1. Defendant 1 in collusion with the Nonindicted Party, who is the representative director of Defendant 3 Company,

A. From March 1, 1979 to September of the same month, at the (name omitted) theater located in the Jeonju-si (name omitted), the term “morma women” means screening movies, raising 159,750 won from visitors to the Culture and Arts Promotion Fund to collect money from KRW 159,750, and in violation of their duties while keeping them for business, only KRW 38,90,000 is paid to the designated bank, and the remainder of KRW 120,850 is arbitrarily consumed by the Nonindicted Party’s debt repayment and extreme operating expenses, and embezzled it;

B. Without obtaining permission from the Jeonju Mayor, extending the volume of 44,745 square meters to the underground bags (name omitted), which are owned by Defendant 3 Company on April 197, by Defendant 3’s possession;

(c) without obtaining permission from the Jeonju Market:

September 15, 1980 (Name omitted) Dismantling a fire wall, 90.3 square meters installed between Defendant 1 and another building adjacent thereto, which is located between the above (name omitted) building and the building adjacent thereto, and making a large repair;

2. Defendant 1 and 2 conspired:

From April 1, 1977 to February 20, 1978 (title omitted) screen 35 film as shown in the attached Table (2), including Maalgo, at the theater (title omitted). A 2,269,360 won is collected from visitors to the Arts and Arts Promotion Fund and has been kept for business purposes, only gold 1,906,920 won is paid to a designated bank in violation of their duties, and the remainder of 362,40 won is embezzled as voluntary consumption by Nonindicted Party’s debt repayment and its operation expenses;

3. Defendant 3 Company

(A) extend as described in paragraph (b) above; and

(B) carry out substantial repair as described in paragraph (c) above; and

(C) From April 1, 197 to December 31, 1977, at the (title omitted) theater, to obtain a net position of KRW 71,502,270 except for the collection by screening motion pictures as shown in the attached list, as shown in the attached list, including beer, etc., the ticket already sold to the visitors by the ticket manager, and collected them without tearing it, using a deceptive method such as having the ticket manager sell it again, and making the ticket manager sell it again, and making a false report to the both tax authorities importing only KRW 21,00,333 of the difference, and making a false report to the two tax authorities, and not paying KRW 3,190,581, value-added tax, value-added tax, 3,34,190 on KRW 50,501,937.

(D) From January 1, 1978 to February 20, 1978, the (title omitted) theater obtained a net entry of KRW 28,733,690, except for raising and collecting movies as shown in the attached Table, as well as seven readings, from the (title omitted) theater, by making a false report on only KRW 5,424,88, and 23,308,000,000 for value-added tax on KRW 23,308,80,000 for the difference due date for payment, and is evaded due to the failure to file a final report by the deadline for payment;

(E) From March 1, 1979 to April 4, 1979 (title omitted) 24,909,450 won, except for the collection of money, shall be charged by screening a film consisting of a woman at the math's end, deep night, and by using the above deceptive method, a false report is filed at both tax offices that have imported only 4,598,630 won, and the difference is not paid by 1,846,438 won in value-added tax on 20,310,820 won.

The evidence relationship of the facts that a member states is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, except for adding the entry of the party members in the records verification protocol to the summary of the evidence, and therefore it is citing it as it is by Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Since Article 356 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the so-called imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above crimes listed above Article 1 and Article 4 and Article 5 (1) 1 of the Building Act (Act No. 2852), Article 54 and Article 5 (1) of the same Act provides that the so-called so-called crime under Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 years, Article 54 and Article 5 (1) of the Building Act (Act No. 3251), Article 3 of the same Act provides that the so-called crime under Article 8 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 years, Article 5 (1) (B) provides that the so-called crime under Article 30 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 years, Article 54 and Article 57 (1) (3) of the same Act provides that the so-called crime under Article 1 of the Punishment of Tax Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for

Of the facts charged in this case, Defendant Company

1. From February 17, 1979 to March 9, 1979, in the event that a film is screened in a deep night at the (title omitted) theater located in Jeonju-si, and in the math female column, despite the fact that an employee at the ticket booth reported to the tax authorities with respect to the total revenues from admission tickets sold in the ticket booth, and pays the relevant taxes, he/she shall report it to the relevant tax authorities, but he/she shall collect the admission tickets once from the visitors and sell them again to the other visitors by means of fraud, such as in which he/she actually imports 10,131,060 won and sells them again to the other visitors, 10,064,829 won shall be imposed at KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,853,000,0000,000 won and KRW 787,767,000,0000,000 won and KRW 17,767,7,07,07,07,000.

2. From July 11, 197 to August 31 of the same year, the tax authorities should impose taxes of KRW 14,307,560 on the company's net income subject to the restriction on collection of taxes by importing KRW 12,67,07,07 in the same way when displaying films, such as a set-out log, five fingers, dangerous women, and tamprae, within a theater (title omitted), within the range of 500 to August 31, 197. The tax authorities should impose taxes of KRW 3,427,59,00 on the company's net income subject to the restriction on collection, but did not impose taxes of KRW 12,67,07,00 on the company's net income subject to the imposition of taxes of KRW 3,427,59,482, which was reported to the tax offices around September 20, 197; the company's tax authorities did not impose taxes of KRW 13,570,500,4000.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 and 2’s tax evasion

1. In collusion with the Nonindicted Party (Suspension of Prosecution) on February 17, 1979 to July 6, 1979, Defendant 1 screened a female classical film at the (title omitted) theater located in the Gyeong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "Stop"), despite that employees in each ticket are reported to the tax authority and pay taxes on the total admission fees sold in each ticket, Defendant 1 did not collect the admission tickets from the visitors and sell them again to the other visitors by means of fraud, such as selling them again to the other visitors, 10,131,060 won in total, 10,064,829 won in total, 1,870 won in total, 70 won in total, 70 won in total, 70 won in total, 97, 753, 901 won in total, 97, 785 won in total in value-added tax on April 25, 1979, 2073 won in total and 97.75 won in total in total.

(2) Defendant 1, 2 conspired with 3.7.1 to 31.48, 197. 7. 7. 8, 2. 1 to 4. 7. 5, 3, 47, 17. 1 to 4. 7. 8, 47, 47, 57. 7. 1 to 4. 7. 8, 97, 47. 1 to 4. 7. 8, 97, 196, 47. 7. 1 to 4. 7. 9, 197, 2. 5 to 3. 9, 197, 47. 5, 197, 2. 97, 197, 3. 47, 197, 197. 5 to 9. 7, 197. 24, 27. 197

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Giology (Presiding Judge) Order of Merit