Tax Payment Urging and Notice

According to the reasons stated in the accusation attached to the record, the defendant was not able to make up for the land acquisition tax four times, and he was urged to make up for it orally or in writing, but he did not pay it. However, it cannot be viewed as a so-called notification under Article 9(1) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act merely with the demand to do so.

Articles 9 and 12 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

A

Jeonju District Court of the first instance, and Gwangju High Court of the second instance.

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is dismissed.

The Defendant’s ground of appeal is that on April 9, 4290, the Gwangju High Court ordered the Defendant to pay a fine of 85,000 to the Gwangju High Prosecutors’ Office, not later than April 16, 290, for the Defendant’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the Defendant. The Defendant’s objection to the Do was paid to the Defendant on the August 8, 200 and the Defendant paid the five arms during the period of arrears, and the Defendant’s urgent disposition, even though the Defendant was prepared to pay for the remaining three arms, was made up of the plans to pay the remaining three arms, the Defendant filed an appeal against the principal observer by taking a disposition of cancellation of the disposition and postponement of the division.

In instituting a public prosecution against an offender in late-congested tax offense, it is evident that an accusation should be made by the head of the tax office or public officials engaged in taxation under Article 6 (1) except for offenses falling under Article 15 (1) and Article 16 of the same Act, and such accusation shall be made only when the offender notifies the offender under Article 9 (1) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the offender does not comply with the notification. If the offender is deemed unable to comply with the notification, the person who has the right of accusation shall file an accusation. If the offender does not have the ability to comply with the notification, the complaint shall not be made under the foregoing Article 9 (2) and (3) of the same Act, and it shall not be based on the legal provision of the same Article, or if an immediate accusation is to be made without the due process of display and notice, and if it is unclear, the prosecution cannot be made for the reason that the defendant did not comply with the notification or demand for the payment of the charges. Therefore, it is unlawful for the court to dismiss the charges as stated in the first sentence or demand for the payment of this case.

In accordance with Article 391, Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the decision shall be rendered on the basis of the previous opinion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)