The legitimacy of recognizing other facts within the extent identical to the facts charged without any changes in indictment.

Even in the case where the identity of the facts charged is recognized, since the prosecutor changed the facts charged or the applicable provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes to obtain permission from the court and the changed facts charged are subject to adjudication from the court, it is erroneous that the charges under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act are charged to the violation under Article 2 (3) of the same Act without changing the indictment from the prosecutor.

Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

【Court Decision 4294Do716 decided June 14, 1962 (Article 254(16) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 254(16) 1428 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 4160) decided November 19, 1968, 68Do1298 (Article 254(32) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 254(32 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 3421 house- 16 third-55)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (75Gohap41, 856)

Supreme Court Decision 80Do2824 Delivered on December 8, 1981

All convictions against the Defendants in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence in KRW 15,00,000 (Ocheon00).

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The seventy-five days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment against Defendant 1 shall be included in the period of recovery and detention.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Of the facts charged, Defendant 1’s excessive report of deficits in the tax base return of corporate tax in 1972, Defendant 1’s evasion of corporate tax in 1973, and Defendant 2’s acquittal, respectively.

The prosecutor's appeal against the non-guilty portion of the judgment below (the excessive appropriation of losses in the return of tax base for the year 1974) is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The first point of the defendants' grounds for appeal is that the defendant 2 company (hereinafter the defendant company) was transferred to the defendant company for the payment of his obligations, and the non-indicted 1 company was found not guilty because it did not return the first part of the check to the non-indicted 1 company located in Hong Kong and the non-indicted 1 company located in Bogeleslese Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the "CNTRY TRADFG Co.), and 1,49,784,935 won and 243,784,935 won and 2,000 won were transferred to the defendant company's company for the payment of its obligations, and the court below found the defendant not guilty as to the second part of the judgment, since the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the second part of the judgment and the second part of the reasons for appeal by the defendant 1 and the second part of the court below as to the defendant 1's interest payment of the check, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment.

Therefore, the first point of appeal against the Defendants of the prosecutor's appeal is that according to all evidence of the prosecutor's submission as to the fact that the Defendants excessive appropriation of deficits in the report of tax base against the Defendant company in 1974, the prosecutor found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the time of the failure to meet the requirements of the submission despite sufficient proof. The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that there was a violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the time of the commencement of the act of tax evasion under Article 9-3 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the appeal by the prosecutor as to each part of the acquittal by the court below was affirmed not guilty on the ground that there was no prosecutor's appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal by the court prior to the reversal).

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(A) We examine the first issue in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, and ex officio as to the first offense (the excessive appropriation of the deficit amount in the tax base return in 1972) at the time of original adjudication.

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the fact that there was an excessive appropriation of losses in filing a report on the tax base of each tax base of the 1972 and 1974 against the Defendants is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

1) In the investigation and determination of the tax base amount of the corporate tax for 1972, the tax base return was filed with 548,064,83 won per year, but the tax base return was filed with 1.1 to 31.20,000 won per year, 49,718.150 won which was returned to 3.0,000 won per year and 97,000 won per annum 20,000 won per year and 97,000 won per annum 96,000 won per annum 2,000,000 won per year and 97,000 won per annum 2,000 won per year and 97,000 won per annum 2,000 won per year and 97,00 won per annum 16,000 won per year and 97,06,000 won per year, more than 97,000 won per annum 2,000 won per year.

However, the court below's determination that the above tax base of the company was not filed for 7 years with respect to the previous tax base of the company's 19th day after its destruction, and that the company was not filed for 97th day after its return as to the above tax base of the company's 19th day after its destruction and 97th day after its return. The court below's determination that the above tax base of the company was not filed for 97th day after its return as to the previous tax base of the company's 19th day after its destruction and 97th day after its return and 97th day after its return as to the previous tax base of the company's 9th day after its destruction and 97th day after its return. The court below's determination that the above tax base of the company was not filed for 9th day after its return as to the previous tax base of the company's 19th day after its return and 9th day after its return as to the previous tax base of the company's 9th day after its return.

(B) We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal as to the evasion of corporate tax in the year 1973.

Of the facts charged as to the defendant's evasion of corporate tax against the defendants, the summary of the facts charged as to the guilty portion of the judgment below is as follows: "The defendant company paid the defendant company to the Bigto Trade Company and the Acenture Trade Company as the principal amount from January 1, 1973 to December 31 of the same year, and then received the return amount of KRW 243,794,935 without being appropriated for import, and then withdrawn it as the provisional money, thereby evading corporate tax amount of KRW 97,517,974 against the same amount by fraud, and the defendant company's representative director evaded corporate tax by fraud or improper means."

위와 같은 공소사실에 대하여 피고인들은 검찰이래 당심에 이르기까지 위 반송된 돈은 공소외 1 회사귀속 이득으로서 피고인 회사의 익금이 아니라고 변소하고 있으므로 살피건대, 원심 및 당심증인 공소외 4의 증언, 파기전 당원의 기록검증서의 기재 및 기록에 매여져 있는 판결 2통(공판기록 531면 내지 599면의 1심 행정판결, 609면 내지 614면 상고심 행정판결)과 확인서(공판기록 1276면)의 기재를 종합하면, 피고인 1은 피고인 회사의 대표이사로 재직하면서 인도네시아의 임산물 개발을 위하여 1970. 12. 30. 대한민국 정부로부터 원목개발을 위한 해외투자허가를 얻어 1971. 2. 25. 투자금액을 미화 3,000,000불로 하고 피고인 회사가 70% 인도네시아의 타네코목재주식회사가 30%씩 불입하는 조건으로 인도네시아의 외자도입법 등에 의하여 인도네시아 공소외 1주식회사(앞서부터 공소외 1 회사로 약칭하여 왔다)를 설립한 사실, 인도네시아 정부는 위 설립허가를 함에 있어서 그 합작투자법인인 피고인 회사가 인도네시아의 합작투자선인 타네코 목재주식회사의 투자금까지 불입하는 조건으로 그 허가를 하였고 위 설립자금은 설립목적사업이 종결되어 해산될 때까지는 이를 회수할 수 없는 인도네시아의 외자도입법에 의한 제약을 받게된 사실, 공소외 1 회사가 대한민국의 국내은행으로부터 투자금을 융자받음에 있어 외국환관리법, 무역거래법, 외자도입법 등 관계규정에 의한 제약을 받게 되어 피고인 회사가 주채무자가 되거나 지급보증을 함으로써 한국외환은행으로부터 그 자금을 대출받아 위 설립자금으로 충당하였는데 1차적으로는 피고인 회사가 지급보증한 미화 1,850,000불의 주식회사 제일은행의 보증신용장에 의하여 한국외환은행 홍콩지점에서 신용장을 개설하여 위 현지 무역중개상인 빅토리무역상사명의로 위 1,850,000불을 융자받고 피고인 회사 명의로 한국외환은행으로부터 수출입은행법에 의한 해외투자용 차입금으로서 미하 1,050,000불을 차입하여 이상 미화 2,900,000불을 공소외 1 회사설립자금으로 투자하였으며, 2차적으로는 1974년도에 피고인 2 회사의 보증신용장에 의하여 빅토리무역상사 명의로 한국외환은행 홍콩지점에서 신용장개설 금액으로 미화 665,000불과 피고인 회사 명의로 수출입은행법에 의한 차입금 미화 665,000불 이상 도합 1,330,000불을 추가투자하여 총 도합 미화 4,230,000불의 개발자금을 융자받아 공소외 1 회사의 설립자금으로 충당한 사실 위 융자금은 한국수출입은행법 한국수출입은행 업무방법서 제7장 제19조 제4호의 규정에 따라 년 1회 이상 정기분할 상환하되 당해사업에서 생산되는 물품이 대한민국으로 수입되는 경우에는 수입대금의 송금액을 가지고서 위 융자금상환에 충당하도록 되어 있었으나 위에서 본 바와 같이 인도네시아의 외자도입법상 제약이 있으므로 피고인 회사는 인도네시아의 외자도입법상 제약을 탈피하는 탈법수단을 써서라도 공소외 1 회사의 소득에 의하여 위 미화 4,230,000불의 산림개발자금을 상환하여야 할 입장이었으며, 공소외 1 회사의 국제원목시세로 피고인 회사에 수출하게 되면 고율의 수출세를 부담하게 됨으로 이를 피하려고 원목수출입 중개상을 개입시키는 이른바 삼각무역거래방식을 채택하기로 하여 공소외 1 회사는 홍콩소재 빅토리무역상사와 로스엔젤레스 소재 센츄리무역상사들과 무역을 중개하는 무역거래계약을 맺고서 공소외 1 회사는 위 두 무역상사들에게 원목을 국제시세보다 싼 인도네시아 정부고시 가격으로 수출하는 형식을 취하고 위 두 해외무역상사들은 이를 그때 그때의 국제시장가격으로 피고인 회사에 수출하는 형식을 취하여 위 국제시장 가격과 인도네시아 정부고시가격과의 차액에서 그들의 무역중개에 따른 수출알선수수료와 외상대금의 이자(두 해외무역상사는 공소외 1 회사로부터 현금으로 수입하고 피고인 회사에 외상으로 수출하여 그에 따른 이자)등을 공제하고 그 나머지 차액은 공소외 1 회사에게 귀속하게 될 소득이므로 이를 공소외 1 회사에 송금하여야 하나, 위와 같은 변태적인 삼각무역거래방식을 채택한 까닭은 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 2 회사가 투자한 금 4,230,000불의 원리금 상환을 위하여 강구한 비상적이고 탈법적인 수단이었으므로 공소외 1 회사의 양해와 승인하에 그 변제를 위하여 그 일부로서 위 빅토리무역상사의 명의로 빌린 미화 2,515,000불(1,850,000불 + 665,000불)은 한국외환은행 홍콩지점에서 공소외 1 회사의 명의로 직접 변제하여 왔었고 그 나머지는 피고인 회사의 명의로 빌린 미화 1,750,000불(한화 651,097,000원)에 대하여는 공소외 1 회사의 지시에 따라 위 두 해외무역상사들이 바로 피고인 회사에 송금하여 피고인 회사는 그 송금액을 가지고서 위 수출입은행자금 651,097,000원의 원리금을 위 상환계책에 따라 분할 상환하여 온 사실, 위와 같은 경위로 위 두 해외무역상사들이 이른바 역송금 형식으로 피고인 회사에 송금된 금액 1973년도에 공소장 설시 금 243,794,935원을 포함한 합계 금 270,584,000원이고 피고인 회사는 그 장부에 가수금으로 위 금원을 기장하여 놓은 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

If the above facts are the above, the above amount remitted to the defendant company in the form of the above reverse remittance shall be deemed to be the income of the non-indicted 1 and shall not be deemed to be the income of the defendant company, and the testimony of the non-indicted 2, 3, and non-indicted 5 and their statements at the prosecutor's office, which seem to support the facts charged, are merely a statement based on the premise that the above amount was the profits of the defendant company, without understanding the reverse remittance process like the above recognition, when investigating the case as a tax official, and it is merely a statement based on the premise that the above facts charged are the profits of the defendant company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged, so the court below's judgment convicting the defendants of the corporate tax evasion on the above portion on the premise that the above amount was the profits of the defendant company in 1973, cannot be found to be erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the judgment, and therefore, the defendants' appeal from this point is justified.

(C) Finally, as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, even within the extent that the identity of indictment is recognized, the modified charges are subject to a trial by the court with the permission of the prosecutor or the court by changing the facts charged or applicable provisions of law, and the court below, on the record, judged the prosecutor as a criminal negligence in violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, although there is no trace of the fact that the prosecutor changed the facts charged against the defendant to a violation of Article 2 (3) of the same Act (criminal negligence), as recognized by the court below, is erroneous in the judgment of the court below. (In the trial after the reversal, the charges and applicable provisions of law were modified as criminal negligence).

(D) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants cannot be reversed or reversed, and all of the convictions in the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which reported the amount of loss in the report of the tax base of the corporate tax in 1974 against the Defendants (the remaining appeal by the prosecutor against each of the acquittals of the court below was rendered at the trial prior to the reversal, and it became final and conclusive without the prosecutor's appeal against it). Accordingly, the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants was dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4)

1) The guilty portion of Defendant 1

As representative director of the defendant company, the above defendant

On Sep. 16, 1965, the Korean Commercial Bank Sung-dong Branch on Sep. 16, 1965, the Korean Commercial Bank's Sung-ro Branch on Sep. 23, 1968; and on Dec. 5, 1969, the Korean Exchange Bank's name Dong Branch on Sep. 23, 1968; and on Jun. 11, 1975, when issuing a check number 233625; the Japanese Bank's first branch on Jun. 11, 1975; the date of issuance; and the Bank's first branch on Sep. 30, 1975, the Korean Commercial Bank's business branch on Sep. 16, 1965, the Korean Commercial Bank's credit loans were offered as a collateral group on the Korean Commercial Bank's business branch on Sep. 24, 1968; and the defendant, despite the lack of time to pay the deposits, has to pay the deposits more than 97 times in advance.

The summary of the evidence as to the above facts is as shown in the corresponding column at the time of original trial in addition to adding the statement of the defendant in the trial court, so it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The so-called "Defendant 1's decision" refers to Article 2 (3) and (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act, and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act are applicable to concurrent crimes. Since several offenses are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, among them, the defendant is confined to the above defendant for the period of 50,000,000 won for a fine within the scope of a fine severe for concurrent crimes with punishment for the crime of violation of the Illegal Check Control Act stated in attached Table 8 of the same Act (issuance interest at par 80,00,000 on April 18, 1975). If the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined to the above defendant 1 for the period of 15,00,000 won for which 50,000 won was converted by Articles 69 and 70 of the Criminal Act, and Article 57 of the same Act shall be included in the sentence of a fine for the above 365-day.

2) Determination on the acquittal portion

1. The summary of the facts charged as to the prosecutor's violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the violation of the tax base return of the tax base of the year 1972 against the defendants in the tax return of the tax base of the tax year is the same as the entry in the judgment of the grounds for appeal (A) and the examination in the judgment, as seen above, the act of violation results in the attempted violation without establishing any special provision as to the attempted crime, and the punishment of the tax offense does not have any special provision as to the attempted crime. Thus, the

2. The summary of the facts charged as to the prosecutor's evasion of corporate tax in the year 1973 against the defendants is as follows: (a) between January 1, 1973 and December 31, 1973; (b) between December 1, 1973 and December 31, 197, the amount of KRW 243,794,935 which was returned to the defendant company by the Bigto Trade Company and License Trade Company without importing KRW 243,79,935 which was returned to the defendant company; and (c) the amount of corporate tax in the year 197,517,974 was evaded by fraud; and (b) between August 1, 1973 and December 31, 1973, the amount of KRW 208,253,795 is as to the defendant company's evasion of corporate tax and other unlawful methods such as corporate tax, corporate tax, etc. for the above amount; and (d) the defendant company's evasion of income and its business.

As to the withdrawal of corporate tax from the above paragraph (A) above, as determined in the above appeal No. 1, 243,794,935 won stated in the indictment as the above returned source money was not the income of the defendant company, but the defendant company's income in the year 1973, and there is no evidence to prove the above part of corporate tax evasion (the above part of corporate tax evasion was acquitted at the court below, but the above part of corporate tax evasion was found guilty at the court below's 1973). Since the defendant was not aware of the above guilty portion at the court below's 1973 list, it was hard to find that the above part of corporate tax evasion did not constitute a single comprehensive crime, it was hard to find that the above part of corporate tax base was transferred to the defendant company for the purpose of transferring the above list to the defendant company and there was no evidence to find that the defendant's 1 did not know that the above part of corporate tax base was transferred to the defendant company, but it was hard to receive the above 1's income from the plaintiff.

Thus, this paper examines whether the above four books (Nos. 1 through 4) are confidential books of the defendant company.

The above book 4 is evidence supporting the fact that the defendant company's confidential account book was the defendant company's secret account book, and the National Tax Service's investigation guidance 1 and the defendant company's company's direct investigation 2 and the non-indicted 5's testimony at the court below or the trial court's non-indicted 5 who investigated the defendant company while working for the investigation team in the above investigation 1 and the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 2's testimony at the court below or the trial court's court's 1973 among the non-indicted 2's testimony at the court below's court below's 229,574,874, among the non-indicted 2's testimony at the court below's court below's court below's 21,321,079 won was replaced by the regular account book and the balance 208,253,795 won was omitted in the regular account book. This is also a statement that the plaintiff's original account sale price in Incheon

In order to verify the contents of the above confidential book among the testimonys in the court below's decision and the trial court's decision, it is not sufficient to conclude that the amount indicated on the above book No. 4 is about the omission in sales of the defendant company, just by the statement of the above investigator, because the above investigator did not confirm whether the original item was actually transferred, and the above investigator's statement was confirmed only the contents of the book, and it is insufficient to conclude that the amount indicated on the above book No. 4 was about the omission in sales of the defendant company, in light of the evidence and the defendants' defenses stated below.

첫째, 위 비밀장부가 73년 8월부터 74년 12월말까지 기장되어 있으며(피고인이 원목파동이 있었다고 진술한 기간과 일치한다)위 증인 공소외 5가 말한 조사결과에 대하여 원심법정에서의 증인 공소외 7은 수사기록 제185정의 내용은 공소외 5가 와서 조사할 때 실제로 위 증인들이 원목을 받았는지 현금으로 환불받았는지 조사하지 않고 위 비밀장부에 적힌 금액중 당해 증인의 해당분만 뽑아왔다고 하므로 맞으리라 생각하고 그 금액을 맡긴 일이 있었다는 사실의 확인을 해준다는 취지에서 확인서를 써준 것에 불과하고 실제로는 그후 현금 또는 원목을 다 환불받았는바 그 내용은 증인이 1973년도에 피고인 1 개인에게 원목을 사달라고 맡긴 돈이 도합 금 32,836,570원이었는데 같은해 중에 피고인 회사로부터 원금 금 2,079,960원 상당을 인도받고 73년도말 현재 피고인 1 개인에게 보관된 잔금은 30,756,610원이었는데 그중 20,328,723원은 74년도에 들어와서 물품으로 인도받아 그 대금으로 결제되었고 나머지는 환불받았다고 진술하고 있고, 참고자료 4의 38의 기재중 위 증인이 현금으로 환불받은 액수의 확인기재 내용이 있으며 둘째, 원심증인 공소외 8은 1수사기록 제186정의 확인서를 원심증인 공소외 8이 피고인 1 개인에게 원목 구입관계로 돈을 맡긴 일이 있었는데 그 보관금중에서 원목을 구입하고 남게된 우수리 거스름돈으로서 그 돈을 피고인 1 개인으로부터 환급받지 아니하고 그대로 맡겨두었던 금액에 대한 명세확인서이며, 2수사기록 187정의 확인서는 피고인과 위 증인 공소외 8의 친분관계로 왕왕 동 증인이 피고인 회사에 지급하여야 할 원목대금을 피고인 개인돈으로 입체한 적이 있는데 그에 대한 인사로 금리 지급의무에 가름하여 지급한 사례금으로 피고인 회사와는 관련이 없는 돈이라고 3수사기록 188정의 확정에 기재된 원목대금 지불금과 원목인도분과의 차액 18,535,096원은 위 증인이 피고인 회사로부터 1972년도 원목외상대금 43,713,932원이 있었기 때문에 피고인 1이 위 보관금을 회사에 입금시켜 위 외상대금중 일부를 정리하기로 하였던 것이라고 진술하고 있으며 셋째, 원심증인 공소외 6은 1증인 기록한 위 비장은 회사의 공식장부는 아니고 사장인 피고인 1 개인의 지시에 의하여 기장하여 직접 사장에게만 결재받았으며 2, 위 비망록에 기재된 돈이 회사가 받은 원목대금이라면 마땅히 회사장부에 기장하여 경리부차장, 전무, 부사장, 사장의 결재를 얻어야 할 것이나 사장 개인이 보관한 돈을 기장한 비망록이기 때문에 사장이 메모한대로 사장개인의 지시에 쫓아 그 노트에 기장한데 불과하고 3, 위 증인은 위 비망록을 사장실 또는 증인의 책상설합속에 보관한 것이므로 경리부차장이나 기타 경리부직원들도 전연 모른다고 증언하고 있으며(위 증인은 이에 대하여 검찰진술에 경리부차창은 알고 있는 것으로 생각된다고 진술하였는데 원심에 와서 이는 당시의 경리부차장 공소외 9가 그 노트를 보았거나 같이 관여하였으니까 그러하다고 말한 것이 아니라 추측으로 그와 같이 말했던 것이라고 진술하고 있다) 넷째, 원심증인 공소외 4는 ①1973년도 하반기부터 원목파동이 일어나 거래선으로부터 원목구매주문이 쇄도하였으나 전수금을 받으려면 물품의 가격수량 및 인도기일을 확정하여야 하는데 당시 재고는 없고 피고인 회사에서는 원목이 언제 입하될지도 모르고 또 가격도 불확실하여 주문전 수금을 받지 아니하였고 ②원심증인 공소외 4는 1972. 1. 7. 피고인 회사에 입사하여 1974. 7. 1. 경리부차장이 되어 현재에 이르고 있는데 위 비밀장부는 1975. 4. 1. 치안본부에서 이건 탈세에 관한 조사를 받을때 처음 보았다고 진술하고 있으며 다섯째, 위 증인 공소외 2의 증언에 의하면 증 제1호의 1기 재대로 위 비밀장부의 일부기재 금 21,321,079원은 원장에 이기된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바 위와 같은 일련의 사정에 피고인들의 변소를 모두어보면 위 비밀장부가 피고인 회사의 비밀장부로서 실제로 원목을 인도하고 수입한 대금을 기장한 장부임을 인정할 만한 증거라고 볼 수 없으며, 달리 위 비밀장부가 피고인 2주식회사의 비밀장부로서 실제로 원목을 인도하고 수입한 대금을 기장한 장부라고 인정할 아무런 증거가 없는 이 건에 있어서 결국 위 장부가 비밀장부임을 전제로 하여 피고인 법인이 법인세를 포탈하였다는 위 공소사실은 범죄의 증명이 없음에 돌아간다 할 것이다. ③ 따라서 원심이 피고인들에 대하여 유죄로 인정한 부분중 1972년도 법인세과세표준신고에 있어 결손과대 계상의 점에 대한 조세범처벌법위반의 점은 죄가 되지 아니하여 형사소송법 제325조 전단에 따라 무죄를 선고하고 1973년도 법인세포탈의 점에 관한 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반의 점은 그 범죄의 증명이 없으므로 형사소송법 제325조 후단에 따라 무죄를 선고한다.

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

Judge Final (Presiding Judge)