The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the Defendant, as the representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, excessively appropriated the cost as stated in the judgment below, thereby falsely reporting the amount of income.

However, in order to fall under the “Fraud or other unlawful act” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, there was ① intent to evade tax, ② there was a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect tax as a means to do so, ③ the causal relationship that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect tax should be recognized, and the determination thereof should be determined depending on whether the omission of income can be easily investigated and confirmed at the time of tax investigation after the filing of corporate tax return.

① At the time of filing a corporate tax return, the Defendant did not have the intent of tax evasion because the Defendant had the intention of filing a revised return. ② Unless the disbursement certificate was received and kept pursuant to Article 116 of the Corporate Tax Act, the Defendant did not actively engage in the act, such as forging and keeping false tax invoices, receipts, etc., but the Defendant could only be subject to corporate tax when the National Tax Service confirms the existence of evidentiary data. As such, the Defendant’s act is merely an omission in filing a tax return or a false return, and furthermore, there is no causal link between the impossibility of imposing and collecting taxes or significantly difficult.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act does not constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act” as an act that simply underreporting the tax base and does not pay taxes thereon.

Nevertheless, each of the above cases is recognized as the defendant evaded taxes by committing unlawful acts.