The number of crimes of tax evasion in violation of Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a single type of crime by combining the acts under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the acts under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by prescribing the grounds that the annual amount of evaded tax is above a certain amount of amount, and therefore only one crime is established in

Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul Criminal Court (83 High Court Decision 656)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months and by a fine of twenty thousand won, by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months and a fine of twenty thousand won, by a term of imprisonment for a term of twenty years and six months, by a term of twenty-seven million won and a fine of twenty-seven million won, and by a term of imprisonment for a term of one year and six months and a fine of thirty-six thousand won, respectively.

In a case where the defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the defendants shall be confined to the defendant 1; the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 shall be confined to the defendant 1; the defendant 100,000 won shall be converted to the one day each, respectively.

155 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above imprisonment for the defendants.

However, from the date of the conclusion of this judgment, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for 4 years for Defendant 1, and for 2 years for Defendant 2 and 3, respectively.

The gist of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor is that the sentence against the Defendants is unfair because of the fact that the Defendants’ evaded tax amount is large and strong. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the public defender and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the private defense counsel of the Defendants 1 and 3 is merely a sale brokerage or a consignment, and it does not constitute a taxable object under the Value-Added Tax Act. However, the court below erred by erroneous determination of the facts, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants 2 and 2 is that, in light of the circumstances of the Defendants’ property, the sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable because the sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the defendants' criminal facts and there is no other error of mistake of facts.

Then, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") provides that the part concerning Defendant 1 and 2 shall be established only in the case of the above legal provision by combining the act under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the act under Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by establishing an aggravated reason that the annual amount of evaded tax is above a certain amount, and by prescribing the statutory punishment for it. However, the court below shall consider Defendant 1's act as a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act by dividing it into two crimes under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Since the court below's decision on the unfair sentencing of the above Defendants and the prosecutor's unjust sentencing of the above Defendants cannot be reversed in this regard without the judgment of the court below as to the sentencing of the above defendants, considering the following reasons.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

The summary of the criminal facts and evidence of the defendants recognized as a party member is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

As the so-called "nomenclatures" in law, the defendants 1 and 2 shall be included in the so-called "nomenclatures" under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and Article 8 (1) 2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, each of the above decisions shall be included in the scope of imprisonment with prison labor, and the prescribed fines shall be prescribed in Article 8 (2) and (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and the punishment shall be imposed concurrently under Article 8 (2) and (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act; the defendant 3 shall be first punished after the crime of this case; the amount of imprisonment with prison labor and the amount equivalent to the above 5 years shall be included in the above 0-day punishment; the defendants 2 and 3 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 0 years, and the amount of imprisonment with prison labor for 0 years and 60 years shall be included in the above 10-month period.

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

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)