The party capacity of the legal entity whose registration of the completion of liquidation has been made while the trial is pending;

A corporation shall be presumed to have lost its legal personality and lost its legal capacity as a result of the loss of its legal personality unless there are special circumstances, or even if the corporation was indicted due to default of corporate tax, etc. and the registration of its liquidation discretion has been made during the trial of the defendant case, it shall not be deemed to have terminated its liquidation duties unless the case is closed, and it shall continue to exist its legal capacity as a party under the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do2551 Decided April 27, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 81Do1450 Decided March 23, 1982

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Sap Hong, Madon (for Defendant 1), the highest choice of counsel (for Defendant 2 Incorporated Foundation)

Daegu High Court Decision 82No1232 delivered on February 28, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1:

(a) On the first ground for appeal:

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant directly and indirectly recommended funds for supporting the establishment, such as expansion, etc. of hospital facilities, etc., of a part of the training employed by the defendant, and the donation of this case is not recognized as consideration for the recruitment of training, and rather, it cannot be viewed that the direct common interest of the people who work as training courses is recognized as having complied with the collection of donations under the circumstances that it is difficult to refuse the collection of donations due to the relation employed as training and the extension of hospital facilities is recognized. Since the donation of this case is KRW 10 million per head of the collected amount waterworks or KRW 6 million per head of the collected amount waterworks, it is considered as an act infringing the property right of the collected amount of money and/or undermining the livelihood stability, the court below's decision that upheld the first instance court's decision that maintained the so-called "the first instance court's decision that constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Act on the Prohibition of Donations," and there is no error in the misapprehension

(b) On the second ground for appeal:

According to the evidence employed by the court of first instance, since it is sufficient to recognize the criminal intent of tax evasion as stated in its reasoning, the measures taken by the court below maintaining them are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore the arguments cannot be adopted.

2. As to Defendant 2’s incorporated foundation:

(a) On the first ground for appeal:

As stated in the judgment of the second ground of appeal by the above defendant 1, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of tax evasion against the above defendant 1, who is an employee of the foundation corporation, as well as the facts of tax evasion. There is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. Thus, the arguments cannot be

(b) On the second ground for appeal:

In the event that the same corporation as Defendant 2 incorporated foundation has completed the registration of liquidation expenses, it shall be presumed that the corporation would lose its legal personality and lose its legal capacity as a result of the loss of its legal personality unless there are special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. However, the default of corporate tax in this case by Defendant corporation was pending in the court of the case, and thus the prosecution was instituted because it was not completely settled, and even if the liquidation expenses of Defendant corporation have been registered during the trial of the court of the case, it shall not be deemed that the liquidation expenses of Defendant corporation have been completed, and it shall not be deemed that the liquidation expenses of Defendant corporation have been completed unless the case is completed, and it shall be interpreted that the legal capacity of the corporation remains in full (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do2551 delivered on April 27, 1976). Thus, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out, and according to the certified transcript of corporate register of Defendant corporation which is bound to the records, all arguments can not

(c) On the third ground for appeal:

According to Article 16 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, since a prosecution for a crime under Article 8 of the same Act does not require any accusation, a argument that the via notification disposition becomes a requirement for prosecution can not be adopted.

(d) On the fourth ground for appeal:

According to the decision of the court below, since Article 9-3 Item 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 31 of the Corporate Tax Act at the time of the act, or within the reporting period under Article 26 of the same Act, the defendant corporation did not pay taxes, the crime of tax evasion is completed, and the voluntary payment after the revised report is made within the above payment period, and therefore, it shall not affect the crime of tax evasion which was already completed. Thus, the argument can not be adopted.

(e) On the fifth point:

In light of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the argument that the original sentence which sentenced a fine of 400 million won to the defendant corporation is excessive shall not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)