beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 364,751,540 won, which was transferred by account transfer to M as shown in the annexed sheet, is either a payment of debt to N or Defendant M, or a payment of child support, consolation money, or living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or intention to evade the execution of the disposition on default.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the account transfer part among the facts charged in this case as shown in the attached Form M is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 7(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person liable for duty payment shall be punished when he/she conceals, evades, or enters into a false contract for the purpose of evading or evading the disposition on default.
The act of evading disposition on default becomes impossible or difficult to identify the taxpayer's property for the purpose of evading disposition on default. If the taxpayer's property consumption is normal in light of the ordinary transactional norms, even if it was conducted for the purpose of evading disposition on default and resulting in a disadvantage to the country, which is the person having the right to tax collection, even if it was conducted for the purpose of evading disposition on default, it does not constitute evasion of disposition on default under Article 7 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1447 delivered on September 8, 2000, etc.). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below reveals the following facts.
① On November 18, 2015, M took out a loan of KRW 167,548,785 from T Co., Ltd. and lent KRW 150 million to N on the same day.
② On November 22, 2016, the Defendant agreed to divorce with M, and only 165 million property division against M.