The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant used a borrowed account while operating a business entity, the Defendant cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s act of using a borrowed account constitutes an active act of concealing income, in light of the fact that the Defendant issued a normal tax invoice on part of the revenue amount deposited in the above borrowed account and reported the revenue amount, and that the tax office could have easily grasp the borrowed account used by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of evading a mistake of facts, the term “Fraud or other unlawful act” in the crime of evading a mistake of facts refers to an act that enables the evasion of tax, that is, an act that is recognized as illegitimate under the generally accepted social norms, namely, a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect tax, and it does not constitute a mere failure to file a return under the tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003). However, in addition to the circumstances where active concealment intention appears, such as a false recording or underreporting in the books of account, a repeated act of using multiple borrowed accounts, etc., the imposition and collection of tax may be recognized as making it impossible or remarkably difficult.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do667, Apr. 9, 199). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant was duly admitted and investigated by the Health Team and the lower court.