1. Where no determination is made on the corporate tax amount under the Corporate Tax Act for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

2. Timing for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

1.The decision of a kind of virtual cost written by the tax authority cannot be a determination of the corporate tax amount under the corporate tax return provided for in the Corporate Tax Act.

2. Even if the Defendant under-reported the corporate tax and corporate business tax base amount and transaction amount, if the amount omitted due to the government’s tax investigation was later determined on the spot investigation, the act of liability resulting from the above-reported return did not arrive at the time.

Article 37 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 9-3 subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Seoul Criminal District Court (76Gohap35,571)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 40 million (a fine of KRW 0 million).

If the above defendant does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 (O00) into one day.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. are acquitted.

1. Grounds for appeal;

(A) Summary of the Defendants’ defense counsel’s grounds for appeal by Nonindicted 1

첫째로 원판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 피고인 2주식회사(이하 단지 피고인 2 회사라 줄여 쓴다)의 대표이사이던 피고인 1이 공소외 2, 3, 4, 5 등과 공모하여 원심판결1의 가, 나 기재와 같은 방법으로 위 회사의 법인세 및 법인영업세 과세표준액과 세액신고를 함에 있어 그 소득금액과 거래금액을 감소시켜 신고하여 1973. 1. 1.부터 같은해 12. 31.까지간의 법인세 63,116,733원과 1974. 1. 1.부터 같은해 12. 31.까지간의 법인세 327,796,778원과 법인영업세 10,652,670원을 각 포탈하였다고 인정하고 있는바, 피고인 2 회사는 이른바 녹색신고법인으로서 위 회사의 법인세나 법인영업세 등은 모두 그 소정기간내에 관할세무서에 신고하였으나 관할세무서에서는 위 신고에 기한 아무런 세액결정을 하지 아니하고 있다가 피고인들이 법인세 등을 포탈하였다는 이유로 1975. 12. 18.과 1976. 3. 24. 2차에 걸쳐 고발한 후 이 사건 1차 기소가 된 후인 1976. 4. 1.자에 비로소 처음으로 실지조사의 방법에 의하여 피고인 2 회사에 대한 위 기간중의 법인세와 영업세 등이 고지되었으니 설사 피고인 1 등이 조세를 포탈할 목적으로 원심판시와 같이 소득금액과 거래금액 등을 과소신고하였다 하더라도 그 범칙행위는 기수에 이르지 아니하였다 할 것임에도 불구하고 원심이 피고인들이 위 각 세금을 포탈하였다 하여 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 제8조 제1항 제1호 , 조세범처벌법 제9조 제1호 , 제3호 등에 따라 처단하였음은 법인세와 법인영업세포탈범의 기수시기에 관한 법리를 오해하여 법률의 적용을 그르친 위법이 있다는데 있고, 둘째, 원판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 피고인 2 회사의 그 판시 소위를 조세범처벌법 제9조 제1항 제3호 로 의율하여 같은 피고인을 벌금 5억 원에 처하고 있으나 위 범칙행위시에 시행되던 구 조세범처벌법 제9조 제1항 제3호 의 규정에 의하면 “3년 이하의 징역 또는 250만 원 이하의 벌금에 처한다. 이 경우 포탈하거나 환부를 받은 세액에 2배에 상당하는 금액까지 벌금을 과할 수 있다”고 규정되어 있어 어느 경우에 있어서나 포탈금액의 합산액을 최상한으로 못박고 있다 할 것인데 원심인정 사실에 의하면 그 포탈세액은 모두 4억 남짓하니 결국 원심은 포탈세액의 합산액을 초과하여 처단한 위법이 있다는데 있으며, 셋째로, 원심은 피고인 1이 원판결 첨부 별표 1기재와 같이 피고인 2 회사의 부산물(스크랩)매출대금의 일부를 누락하고 또 부당하게 시설투자에 따른 세액감면신청을 하였으며 아연괴의 매출소득을 누락하였을 뿐만 아니라 그 제조경비로서 아연괴 매입대금, 유류대 및 포장비, 교제비 등을 가공 계산함으로써 법인세 및 법인영업세를 포탈하였다고 하고 있으나 위와 같은 부산물의 매출누락이 된 바 없음은 물론 아연괴 매입대금도 누락된 바 없고 또 위 시설투자에 따른 세액감면신청은 적법하며 위에서 본 제조경비 등은 모두가 실제 지출된 것으로서 허위가 아님에도 불구하고 원심이 위와 같이 인정하였음은 사실을 오인하여 판결의 결과에 영향을 미친 위법을 저질렀다는데 있고 넷째로, 원판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 피고인 1은 그 설시와 같이 피고인 2 회사의 제조경비로서 유류대를 가공 지출하고 그 거래액에 대한 영업세 원천징수가 있었던 것으로 하여 영업세신고시 이를 기납부세액으로서 공제받음으로써 그 금액에 상당한 영업세를 포탈하였고, 또 지급되지 아니한 영업세를 지급된 것처럼 손비로 계산함으로써 그에 상당하는 법인세를 포탈하였다고 인정하고 있으나 위와 같은 소위가 있었다면 그것이 영업세 포탈이 됨은 당연하나 그러한 포탈영업세액이 곧 법인소득계산에 있어 익금에 산입될 사항은 아니하므로 위와 같이 법인세를 포탈하였다는 점은 기소사실 자체에 의하여 죄가 되지 아니한다 할 것인즉 원심이 이를 유죄로 인정하였음은 위법하다는 것이며, 다섯째, 원심은 피고인 1은 피고인 2 회사의 아연괴 150톤을 거래하면서 그 거래내용인 7,290만 원을 외형에서 누락하고 또 부산물인 스크랩 4,843,436톤을 매출거래하고 그 외형액 376,751,512원을 계상치 아니하여 그 해당 법인영업세 4,496,515원을 포탈하였다고 인정하고 있으나 위에서 본 바와 같이 위와 같은 아연괴를 매도한 사실이나 스크랩의 판매대금중 일부를 누락한 사실이 없을 뿐만 아니라 이와 같은 영업세 포탈사실을 추궁하려면 매출일자와 매출선, 매출량과 매출대금 등을 밝힌 후에 하여야 할 것임에도 불구하고 원심은 이러한 점에 관한 심리나 입증도 없이 막연히 연평균 매출단가를 기준으로 이를 산정하였으니 원심의 위와 같은 조처는 심리를 다하지 아니하여 사실을 오인한 위법이 있다는데 있고 여섯째, 원심은 피고인 1이 피고인 2 회사의 직원인 공소외 2, 3, 4, 5 등과 공모하여 이 사건 세금을 포탈한 것이라 인정하고 있으나 피고인 1은 당시 피고인 2 회사의 대표이사로서 세부적인 세금신고와 같은 것에 관여한 바 없고 기록을 보아도 위 피고인이 위와 같이 공모하였다고 볼 아무런 증거가 없으니 원심의 위와 같은 조처는 증거없이 사실을 인정한 위법이 있다는데 있으며, 일곱째, 그렇지 않더라도 원심의 피고인들에 대한 양형은 너무 무거워 부당하다는데 있고,

(B) Summary of the Defendants’ defense counsel’s grounds for appeal by Nonindicted 6

First, if it is revealed that part of the tax amount was omitted by auditing various taxes such as corporate tax and corporate business tax in 1973 and 1974 which were reported within the prescribed period due to satisfaction with the public corporation on June 30, 1973 by the tax authority, which received benefits from the green tax return from the tax authority, as of February 18, 1975, the company should first notify the tax authority, and if it is found that there is an omission of the tax amount, it can immediately file a complaint only after the due date of the notification, the address of the corporation is unclear, or the possibility of escape or destruction of evidence is likely to occur, and if a complaint is filed immediately without the notification of the offender, the reasons for the immediate accusation should be stated in the National Tax Service authority's immediate accusation. However, when considering the above reasons as of March 24, 1976, the above accusation should be unlawful, and even if each of the above reasons is unlawful, the court below's interpretation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and its interpretation is unlawful.

(C) The gist of the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal is that the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

Therefore, according to each provision of Article 9(1) through (3) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the director of a regional tax office or the head of a district tax office, on the first ground of appeal of the Defendants’ defense counsel non-indicted 6, when he/she obtains a conviction due to an investigation of an offense, he/she shall, in principle, take a disposition of notification, but when the offender is deemed not qualified to implement the notification as well as when he/she is deemed to be punished by imprisonment, he/she may immediately file an accusation without the notification, and when he/she files an immediate accusation, he/she shall specify the reasons for immediately filing an accusation without the notification in the written accusation, and it

However, upon examining the written accusation of this case filed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 18, 1975 and March 24, 1976 as of March 24, 1976, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service deems that the act of this case would be punished by imprisonment, and that the act of this case would be immediately accused without notification pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Thus, it cannot be accepted on the grounds that the accusation of this case is unlawful.

Then, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Defendants’ attorney-at-law’s first ground for appeal was as follows: (a) in collusion with Nonindicted 2, a representative director of Defendant 2’s company, to January 1, 1973 to December 31 of the same year; (b) in reporting the tax base amount and amount of corporate tax and corporate tax from January 1, 1974 to December 31 of the same year, the lower court recognized Defendant 1’s judgment reduced the amount of income and amount in the same manner as described in B; and (c) in accordance with Article 13 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Article 63,16,73 of the business year following the decision of the government on September 10, 1973; (d) and Article 97 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 1974, Sep. 25, 1975); and (e) in accordance with Article 197 of the same Act, the amount of corporate tax and amount of tax to be paid during the period of three years.

However, according to the provisions of Article 9-3 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, in case of taxes imposed and collected by the taxpayer's report, the act of tax evasion under Article 9 of the same Act provides that when the taxpayer files a tax base report within the statutory due date, after the government's decision or investigation on the tax base of the relevant item was made and the due date for payment passed. In addition, in light of the provisions of Articles 32 and 33 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3200 of Dec. 28, 1979) and Article 92 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9699 of Dec. 31, 1979), the determination of the tax base and amount of corporate tax on a domestic corporation shall be made by the head of the competent tax office by the report under Articles 26 through 28 of the Corporate Tax Act, the determination of the tax base and amount of tax on the domestic corporation and the amount of tax under Article 333 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

그런데 피고인들은 이 사건의 경우 피고인 2 회사에서는 위에서 본 법인세법과 영업세법 소정의 기간내에 법인세와 법인영업세의 과세표준액 및 세액신고를 하였음에도 불구하고 관할세무서장으로부터 이 신고에 기한 아무런 결정이나 조사결정이 된 바 없으므로 이 사건 조세포탈의 범칙행위는 기수에 달하지 아니하였다고 주장하고 있으므로 우선 법인세에 관하여 보건대, 피고인 1의 원심 및 당심법정에서의 각 진술과 증인 공소외 7의 당심법정에서의 진술에 이 사건 수사기록(서울지방검찰청 75형53669호 사건) 1권의 11정 내지 14정에 편철된 피고인 2 회사의 1974.사업년도 법인세과세표준액 세액의 갱정결정결의서, 같은 수사기록 2권의 4정 내지 8정에 편철된 징수유예통지서, 납세고지서, 영수증서, 그리고 1982. 1. 21.자로 검사가 당심법원에 제출한 피고인 2 회사의 1973. 사업년도와 1974. 사업년도의 법인세 과세표준액 및 세액서면 가결정결의서, 위 각 사업년도의 법인세 과세표준액 및 세액에 관한 각 갱정결정결의서와 추가결정결의서, 1982. 2. 17.자 검사제출의 소송증거자료, 피고인들의 변호인 변호사 공소외 1이 변론요지 보충서에 첨부하여 제출한 피고인 2 회사의 1973.사업년도와 1974.사업년도의 법인세 과세표준신고 및 자진납부세액 계산서, 자산재평가착수보고서, 자산재평가신고서의 각 기재내용을 종합해보면, 피고인 2 회사는 철판 등의 제조를 목적으로 1967. 3. 30. 설립된 법인으로서 이 사건 당시에는 이른바 녹색신고법인이었는 바, 위 법인의 1973. 1. 1.부터 동년 12. 31.까지간의 소득금액에 대한 법인세에 대하여는 위 법인세법 제26조 제1항 소정의 기간내인 1974. 3. 13.에 1974. 1. 1.부터 동년 12. 31.까지간의 소득금액에 대한 법인세법에 대하여는 위 법 소정기간내인 1975. 3. 13.에 소관 서울 중부세무서장에게 각 그 과세표준신고를 함과 동시에 그 신고금액에 대한 법인세를 자진납부하였는데 위 중부세무서장은 위에서 본 각 신고에 따른 법인세의 세액결정을 하지 아니한채 그대로 지내오다가 1975. 7. 피고인 2 회사로부터 동 회사의 자산재평가 신고가 들어오게 되자 1975. 9. 10. 위 자산재평가의 실시를 위하여 위 회사의 1973. 1974. 양 사업년도의 법인세에 대하여 위 회사가 신고한대로 서면에 의한 가결정을 하게 된 사실, 위와 같은 가결정은 법인세법이나 그 시행령에 명문의 근거가 있는 것이 아니고 세무실무상 보통세금의 과오납이 있어 그 과오납금의 환급신청이 있을 때나 또는 이 사건처럼 자산재평가의 신청이 있을 경우 세무당국이 내부적으로 하는 일종의 가계산인 사실, 그런데 그뒤 국세청장은 피고인 2 회사가 1974. 사업년도의 법인세 과세표준액신고를 함에 있어 소득금액중의 일부를 탈루하여 세금을 포탈하였다 하여 1975. 12. 28. 서울지방검찰청에 피고인 2 회사와 그 대표이사인 피고인 1을 즉시 고발한 후 검찰의 수사결과 1973. 사업년도분의 법인세 과세표준신고시에도 소득금액의 일부를 탈루하는등 세금을 포탈한 사실이 발견되자 1976. 3. 24. 또 다시 이 사실을 추가로 고발케 되었으며 이로 인하여 피고인들은 1976. 1. 6. 1차로 기소가 된 뒤 또 다시 동년 6. 9.에 2차로 추가 기소가 되었는데 피고인들에 대한 1차 기소가 된 뒤인 1976. 4. 1. 소관 중부세무서장은 위에서 본 1975. 9. 10.자 서면에 의한 가결정을 피고인 2 회사의 법인세과세표준액 신고에 따른 당초 결정으로 보고(다만 위에서 본 피고인 2 회사의 법인세 과세표준액 및 세액에 대한 갱정결정 결의서를 보면 주서로 된 부분이 당초 결정분이라 기재되어 있어 마치 위 서면 가결정 이외에 별도의 결정이 있었던 것처럼 보이나 그 갱정결정결의서상에 주서로 적힌 부분을 보면, 그 내용이 위에서 본 서면 가결정의 내용과 동일한 뿐만 아니라 기록에 의하면 검사 역시 피고인 2 회사의 법인세에 대한 당초 결정이 있었다는 입증으로서 위 서면 가결정서를 제출하고 있는 만큼 위 갱정결정결의서에 적힌 당초 결정은 위에서 본 서면 가결정을 가르키는 것으로 보이며 원심 역시 이를 당초 결정으로 보고 있는 것으로 보인다) 피고인 2 회사의 1973. 1974년 양 사업년도의 법인세의 과세표준액과 세액결정에 일부 탈루된 부분이 있다하여 실지조사의 방법에 의하여 포탈된 법인세의 세액을 결정하고 동년 4. 15.까지를 납기로 한 법인세의 납부고지서를 발부하여 통지하였으며 피고인들에 대한 2차 기소가 된 뒤인 1975. 6. 15. 위에서 본 갱정결정시 일부 잘못된 부분이 있다하여 또 다시 추가로 각 그 법인세의 과세표준액 및 세액에 대한 결정결의를 하고 피고인 2 회사에 대하여 그 법인세액의 납부를 추가 고지한 사실을 인정할 수 있으니 위와 같은 사실관계라면 위에서 본 서면 가결정은 세무서에서 내부적으로 한 일종의 가계산에 지나지 아니한 것으로서 이를 앞서 본 법인세법 소정의 법인의 신고에 따른 법인세액의 결정이라 볼 수는 없을 것이다.

However, as seen earlier, under Article 33 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, Defendant 2 may make a green-reported corporation’s green-reported corporation’s determination of corporate tax in principle by means of a written investigation and determination. As such, it may be argued that the above written provisional decision can be seen as a legitimate corporate tax amount under the Corporate Tax Act. However, even if it is assumed that it is a legitimate corporate tax amount under the above Corporate Tax Act, pursuant to Article 37 of the above Corporate Tax Act, when it is determined as a corporate tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on income for each business year of a domestic corporation pursuant to Articles 32 through 35 of the above Corporate Tax Act, the Government shall notify the relevant domestic corporation thereof. According to Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Corporate Tax Act, if it is notified, it is difficult to find that the above notice is accompanied by the tax base and calculation statement of tax amount, and the statement of retained earnings of the relevant corporation, and even if there is no amount that serves as the tax base for each business year, it is difficult to view that the above notice was given to the above Defendants 2’s statement in writing statement.

Therefore, even if the above provisional decision was made by the government under the Corporate Tax Act, it cannot be said that there was a valid decision unless it was notified to the Defendants.

The following facts are examined: Defendant 2’s business tax base for each transaction amount between January 1, 1974 and June 30, 1974; Defendant 2’s business tax base for each transaction amount between July 1, 1974 and December 31, 1974; and Defendant 2’s business tax base for each transaction amount from January 1, 1974 to June 31, 197; and Defendant 2’s corporate business tax for the transaction amount from June 30 of the same year to June 1, 1974 without filing an accusation with the head of Busan District Tax Office under Article 26(1)1 of the Business Tax Act; Defendant 2’s corporate tax for the business amount from January 1, 1974 to June 31, 197; Defendant 2 did not inform the head of Busan District Tax Office of its tax base return for each of the above business amount under Busan District Tax Office’s tax base return for each of the above business amount under his jurisdiction.

However, the court below held that the government decision was made by the report on September 10, 1975 on the above corporate operating tax, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it even in light of the record, and the court below found that there was the government decision made on September 10, 1975, and found the attached list 1 to the original judgment, and found that the corporate operating tax of KRW 729,000 was evaded between January 1, 1974 and June 30 of the same year, and that the payment period was evaded between September 18, 1974 and July 1, 1974 and December 31, 1974, the corporate operating tax of KRW 9,053,562, which was the corporate operating tax of KRW 562, which had been evaded before the payment period was determined on March 21, 1975, which was recognized by the court below, without any evidence or evidence, and committed an unlawful reason.

Thus, when Defendant 1 filed a return on the corporate tax for each business year of 1973 and each business year of 1974, the corporate tax base and tax amount of the corporation, as shown in the reasoning of the judgment below, even if he under-reported the amount of income and the amount of the transaction, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the act of violating the above return due to the tax investigation by the government was found to have been committed on attempted crimes without the arrival of the time limit. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty on the premise that the time limit for the violation of Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which did not provide for special provisions on the punishment of attempted crimes, has arrived. Thus, it is reasonable to point out this error, pointing this out, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation by misapprehending the legal principles on the time of taking place for the violation of Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, or by applying the law.

3. Thus, among the judgment below against Defendant 1, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as seen above and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 cannot avoid reversal without examining the remaining grounds for appeal of the Defendants or the grounds for appeal of this case by the public prosecutor. Since the above facts by Defendant 1 are in a concurrent relationship with the remaining facts found guilty and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against the same Defendant cannot be

Therefore, under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed in its entirety, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The criminal facts against Defendant 1, who is admitted as a party member, are the same as those recorded in the judgment of the court below, and they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The facts of the judgment

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the original judgment and the trial court of the defendant 1

1. Statement corresponding thereto at the court on the 9th trial date of the court below by Non-Indicted 2

1. Statement corresponding to the suspect examination protocol of the same accused as the prosecutor's protocol;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 2 and 9 on the preparation of the prosecutor, which corresponds to this;

Since the facts in the judgment can be recognized comprehensively, there is evidence.

Defendant 1's decision falls under Articles 35 (1) and 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act. Since three times the value of the object of the violation of this case exceeds 10 million won after selecting a fine among prescribed penalties, the above defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding the amount prescribed in the proviso of Article 35 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and if the above defendant does not pay the above fine under Articles 69 and 70 of the Criminal Act, the above defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 40 million won for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into 1 day, and 100 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act, the above defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and since the above defendant has already been subject to confiscation or already consumed by the above defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, the above amount and the summary order shall be collected additionally from Seoul High Court.

In addition, according to Article 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the above fine is ordered to be paid provisionally.

Of the facts charged of this case

1. Defendant 1:

A. From January 1, 1974 to December 31 of the same year, 2074, 2, Nam-gu Seoul Central District District Court 2: (1) in appropriating by-products generated in the process of manufacturing steel products from Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., the amount of by-products generated in the process of manufacturing steel products is measured by the process, and the total amount of by-products generated in the process is 26,490 tons and 352kigs to 19,694 tons and 724 kigs on the settlement of accounts; (28,604,719 won in the Seoul Central District Tax Office, which reported the difference to 6,795 tons and omitted; and (328,604,719 won in the sales price is not reported to the above tax office; and (528,723,274 won in the corporate tax and corporate tax and corporate tax 5,286,274 won in the corporate tax and corporate tax 1308,130

B. From January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974, Defendant 2, in collusion with Nonindicted Co. 2, 3, 4, and 5, who had been members of the stock company, did not enter the price of raw materials put in export products, appropriated the price of general products excessively as in the case of general products, and, after the end of each business year, the tax base amount and the amount of corporate tax under the jurisdiction of the company, and the amount of corporate tax and the amount of tax collected in advance by the above company for the pertinent period, as listed in the attached Table 1, as in the attached Table 1, in order to raise the recovery fund for the above company. Among the manufacturing expenses, the expenses for purchasing kin oil and other kinds of oil, among general management expenses, school expenses and packing expenses among general management expenses, are separately processed and disbursed. In addition, in order to reduce the amount of income, the above company's total revenue and packing expenses out of the product sales, and the price of raw materials purchased as in the manufacturing process of steel materials, made up to 1545.

The latter reports the fact that the corporate business tax and corporate tax due to the purchase of the processed oil would be withheld, and reports the investment amount of the facilities that are not subject to corporate tax reduction and exemption to the latter as if they were subject to the reduction and exemption of corporate tax, and makes it unreasonably exempt from various taxes, thereby evading the national tax of KRW 256,530

2. Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.: Defendant 1, the representative of the above company, Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, and 5 conspired to conduct the above company's business; Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. located in Jung-gu, Seoul through January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974; Defendant 1 did not submit a collection fund for the total amount of KRW 2,505,638,791, which was withdrawn from the above company for advance payment during the above period; Defendant 3 did not contain any provision regarding the above company's business; Defendant 2 did not contain any provision regarding the above company's business; Defendant 3 did not contain any tax evasion or punishment for the total amount of KRW 70,00 among the manufacturing expenses; Defendant 3 did not contain any provision regarding the above corporate tax evasion or punishment for the total amount of KRW 97,00,000,000 for each of the above corporation's products; Defendant 2 did not contain any tax evasion or punishment for each of the above corporation's.

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

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)