2017Gohap1258, 1288, 2018, 111(combined), 219(Consolidated)

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

(Violation of Authorized Punishment of Tax Evaders Act)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(c) Violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (a gambling place, etc.);

(d) Opening of gambling spaces;

1. A. B.

2.(a)(c)(d)(B);

3. (a)(c)(d) C;

Plaver (prosecution), red, strawing, and juging (public trial)

Law Firm Squa, Attorney Park Jae-sik, Attorneys Park Jae-sik, and Kim Hong (Defendant A)

For purposes of

Law Firm Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeong Ho-ho, Won-hee, and Lee Slun (Defendants)

B, for Section C:

August 24, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months, and imprisonment for up to two years and six months.

However, with respect to Defendant A, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive. To order Defendant A to be put on probation.

Criminal History "2017 Gohap1258 (Defendant A, B)

【Criminal Power】

On November 4, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) at the Seoul Central District Court on two years and six months, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Defendants, along with D, etc. from February 2013 to January 2015, 201, set up a private sports entertainment entertainment site (such as D, E, etc.) that imitates “J,” “K,” etc. (one-time “L,” “M, etc.), at the offices established in the Chinese World Sports Promotion Agency from February 2013 to May 201, and at the F, etc. of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, designated as the seller of sports promotion betting tickets by the Korea Sports Promotion Agency, G, H’s official Internet site, and others without registering as a business in Korea.

In operating the Internet gambling site by means of deposit in the name of the bank account, on July 25, 2013, the operator of the online gambling site has opened the above online gambling site without reporting it to the competent tax office for the first time in 2013, value-added tax of 98,607,715 won (attached Form 1) and the total value-added tax of 748,349,693 won from around that time to May 31, 2015; 3,201, 365 won in global income tax of 2013; 53,925,742 won in global income tax of 2014; 805,470,780 won in total as stated in the list of crimes; and 2017, the operator of the online gambling site has opened the online broadcasting site and operated the same online sports site by means of not reporting it to the competent tax office.

【Criminal Facts】

2. The Defendant, along with A, D, E, etc., opened and operated a website (i.e., ‘J', ‘L', ‘M', ‘N', etc. at an office established in the Republic of China from February 2013 to January 2015) including 'J', ‘K', etc., recruited its members, and up to 0,00 won out of the above members, posted at least 0,00 won out of the total amount of money distributed to each of the members of the above members under the name of P Bank (T), R Bank Account (T), R Bank Account (T), L Bank Account (T), and Y Bank Account (Z), AB Bank Account (AC Account (AC), AB Bank Account (AE), and (AE) account (AE) by means of KRW 8,231,846,631, as stated in the daily election table 2, and paid at least 00,000 won out of the total amount of money distributed to each of the members of the above members.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with E, A, agency operator D, etc., opened a gambling space for profit-making purposes. Even if it is not an entrusted business entity of the Seoul Olympic Games Korea National Sports Promotion Foundation, the Defendant issued sports betting tickets or similar things and caused people who correctly predicted the result to provide property or property benefits.

2018Gohap11(Defendant C)

3. The Defendant, along with A, B, D, and E, established an Internet gambling site by operating an office established in the Republic of Korea from February 2, 2013 to January 2015 and an office designated by the Korea Sports Promotion Agency in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul as the seller of sports promotion betting tickets, and a “J”, “K”, etc. (one-time “L”, and “M, etc.), which imitates “I” as the official Internet site of H’s sports promotion in Seoul, and received deposits in another person’s account without registering the business in Korea. From July 25, 2013 to July 2015, the Defendant did not report the global income tax amount of KRW 30,000 for 2013 to 36,000,000,0000,0000,000 won (attached Table 3, 2013 to 35,015 to 31,0314,519,715,000).

The operators of illegal Internet gambling sites, such as the 2018 Highest 219 (Defendant C), have an office, computer, and server installed in the Chinese and Japan site in order to avoid the control of investigation agencies, and have employees run the business from time to time by publicizing the contents of the website address and deposit account by means of transmission of mobile phone text messages, etc., and have the members recruited do so. The operators of the 2018 Highest Gab219 (Defendant C) raise an account of gambling money through organizations located in Korea.In recent years, the operators of the 2018 High Gab219 (Defendant C) have received certain expenses from those who want to run the business using the above site, and have them run the same Internet site (hereinafter referred to as "one-day agency") without operating the 'sports agency', the operators need to open and manage the 'employee agency'.

【Criminal Facts】

4. The Defendant, along with A, D, E, B, etc., opened and operated a website (i.e., ‘J', ‘K', ‘M', etc. at an office established in the Republic of China from February 2013 to January 2015, the Defendant recruited its members, and up to 00,000 won, posted the total amount of money for each of the instant games to be distributed to its members under the name of P Bank (T), R Bank account (T), R Bank Account (W), X (T), AB Bank Account (AC), AB Bank Account (AE), AB Bank Account (EE), and (i) the AD Bank Account (AE) by means of KRW 8,231,846, and 631, as stated in the list of crimes 200, 500,000,000 won, and paid the amount of money for each of the instant games to its members, and (ii) paid the amount of money for each of the instant games to its members.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with A, B, server manager E, agency operator D, etc., opened a gambling space for profit-making purposes. Even if not an entrusted business entity of the Seoul Olympic Sports Promotion Foundation, the Defendant issued sports betting tickets or similar things, and had them provide property or property benefits to those who correctly predicted the result.

Summary of Evidence

【Nos. 1 and 3 at the Market】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Details of transactions in the name of AF, the details of accounts in the name of AG limited liability company, AH AB bank in the name of AH, and the details of deposits in the post office account during May and June 2014, such as the details of deposits, the details of extraction information by account, and the details of transactions between accounts;

1. A CD in the integrated account statement, (S) bank account statement in the name of the S BankJ;

1. Each accusation;

【Nos. 2 and 4 at the Time of Sales】

1. Each legal statement of Defendant B and C

1. Copies of each protocol of examination of the witness regarding D;

1. Fourth prosecutor's interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. Copy of the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against A;

1. Each investigation report (report accompanied by a file of "property related to settlement of unpaid balance of revenue expenditure");

1. A CD copy of the details of deposits on gambling sites;

1. A CD in the integrated account statement, (U.S.) bank account statement in the name of the S BankJ;

1. A copy of each of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 2016 High Court 466 High Court Decision, 2016Do2517 ( previous records of the judgment of Defendant A);

1. Residential and criminal record data about Defendant A, and a copy of the judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of Defendant A

B. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act), Article 47 Subparag. 2, Article 26(1) of the National Sports Promotion Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point similar to the issuance of sports promotion voting rights), Articles 247 and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of opening gambling spaces)

1. Commercial concurrence (Defendant B, C);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act and the establishment of gambling spaces, and the punishment imposed on a violation of the National Sports Promotion Act with heavier punishment)

1. Selection of a sentence;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant A);

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (mutual between the crimes of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, Gambling, etc.) of each judgment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant A

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Crimes in Punishment of Tax Evaders Act concerning the violation of each Punishment of Tax Evaders Act)

B. Defendant B, C

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes resulting from a violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.) with the largest penalty)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant A);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation order (Defendant A);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments

1. Defendant A

A. Whether the operation of the gambling site of this case constitutes supply of goods or services subject to value-added tax

1) Summary of the assertion

The Defendant et al., the operator of the instant gambling site, converted money transferred from members of the gambling site to game money at the rate of 1:1, and members could exchange money again in cash regardless of whether they walked in money. Therefore, since the money transferred by the Defendant is merely a name of money in the future gambling, it is the same as changing the money of a customer in a casino that is not subject to value-added tax to a casino chip, and there is no fact that the Defendants received fees for exchanging money, and thus, the amount deposited with each account used in the operation of the instant gambling site is not the sales amount corresponding to the supply of goods or services.

2) Relevant legal principles

Value-added tax is imposed on the basis of value-added generated in all stages of production, provision, or distribution of goods or services. As such, value-added tax is a principle for imposing value-added tax on the distribution stage of goods or services that are newly created. Gambling is to determine the acquisition and loss of property by taking property among the participants and determining the acquisition and loss of property depending on the contingency or situation. Therefore, gambling is not a general creation of value-added tax, and it is not subject to value-added tax.

However, in the event that gambling business is conducted, if the customer’s money paid falls under the price for the goods or services provided by the business operator, not merely a money for gambling, it is subject to value-added tax. Therefore, in a case where a sports gambling business operator provides customers with an opportunity to participate in gambling and receives money as consideration for such offer through an information and communications network, even if the act promotes speculation, it constitutes a supply of goods or services with property value, and thus, it should be subject to value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19704, Apr. 7, 2017).

3) Determination

Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence above in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the instant gambling site operation constituted the supply of services that are subject to value-added tax. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

A) The Defendant issued and sold similar sports betting tickets, and operated the instant gambling site by paying dividends to those who correctly predicted the outcome of sports games as financial resources.

B) The instant gambling site operators, including the Defendant, etc. (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) issued and sold similar sports promotion voting rights without directly taking property with those who purchased similar sports promotion betting tickets, and received compensation therefor.

C) The money received by the Defendant, etc. as consideration for the issuance and sale of similar sports promotion betting tickets shall be reverted to the Defendant, etc. immediately, and the payment of dividends or dividends to persons who correctly predicted the outcome of sports games, but the purchase price of similar sports promotion betting tickets itself was not returned.

D) As a person who purchased similar sports betting tickets, he/she paid the price for the "provision of an opportunity to acquire game money at a certain rate by betting on the game money received as a game money, such as game money, which he/she received and received." Although an opportunity to exchange game money in cash is provided, the purchase price of the game money initially purchased is not returned. Thus, the act of receiving money from users and selling the game money itself constitutes a supply of service, which is a transaction subject to value-added tax.

B. Whether there are parts deemed necessary expenses in relation to the calculation of income tax base

1) Summary of the assertion

In calculating the income earned by the Defendant in the course of operating the instant gambling site, the dividends paid to the gambling users from the proceeds from supply supplied by the users to the gambling site as necessary expenses, but the prosecutor failed to prove the specific amount of dividends paid to the users at the gambling site. Therefore, in relation to the income tax, it is difficult to view that the evaded tax amount corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case has been proven without any reasonable doubt.

2) Determination.

A) When calculating business income, the amount to be included in the necessary expenses shall be the sum of the expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the pertinent taxable period, which is generally accepted (Article 27(1) of the Income Tax Act), and the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the necessary expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in each taxable period of business income shall be limited to those prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of

B) In this case where Defendant A did not submit all necessary books and documentary evidence to calculate the tax base of business income derived from the operation of the instant gambling site, as well as the final return on the tax base of income tax, the prosecutor calculated income tax arising from the operation of the instant gambling site by deducting the amount of value-added tax from the amount of the gold deposits objectively verified through the account tracking, calculating the amount of income, and deducting necessary expenses by applying the simple expense rate of 88% in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. The prosecutor's method of calculating the amount of income is reasonable to be in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as well as to be reasonable. Thus, this part of the crime is recognized.

C) However, the Defendant asserts that the dividends paid to gambling site users should be deducted as necessary expenses without specifying the items and amount that can be deducted from the necessary expenses, and that the Defendant and the defense counsel do not accept this part of the assertion.

2. Defendant B, C

A. Summary of the assertion

There is no objective evidence to deem that the Defendants used the AJ account under the name of the limited liability company to receive money from the gambling site users between April 1, 2014 and April 5, 16, 2014. Thus, the part of income tax and value-added tax calculated based on the money deposited in the AJ account under the name of the limited liability company cannot be deemed to have evaded the Defendants.

B. Determination

1) It was confirmed that the Defendants transferred money to each of the accounts in the name of U limited liability companies, AG, AAAA limited liability companies, X limited liability companies, and AD limited liability companies (hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit accounts”) for a considerable number of times from the members of the instant gambling site to the Fund, “AK, AL, AMN, APO, AP, AP, Q, AR, AS, and ATS2” were deposited more than 46 times from April 1, 2014 to May 16, 2014.

2) 18 depositors (aU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BH, BH, BJ, BJ, BK, BK, and BL) also appear to have repeatedly deposited money in the AJ account under the name of a limited liability company more than 30 times from April 1, 201 to May 16, 2014.

3) The fact that the funds were transferred in the account under the name of the limited liability company AJ to the R’s account used in the final safe account through the intermediate account was also confirmed.

4) As above, in full view of the following: ① the money deposited in the account under the name of a limited liability company: (a) the Defendants transferred the money deposited in the account under the name of a limited liability company to the Plaintiff’s name, ② the similarity between the instant gambling site users and the frequency of repeated deposits; and (b) the Defendants appear to have a similar type of use of the instant deposit account and the AJ account under the name of a limited liability company; and (c) the Defendants were operating the instant gambling site and using the instant deposit accounts and similar accounts for about two months for the purpose of avoiding crackdowns; and (b) the Defendants appears to have changed the instant deposit accounts in sequential order to avoid crackdowns, it is sufficiently recognized that the account under the name of a limited liability company was used by the Defendants for operating the instant gambling site. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants and the

Reasons for sentencing

[Defendant A]

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than three years;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: Each of the instant offenses committed by the Defendant is not subject to the sentencing criteria, since the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are related to each of the offenses committed on the records of the offense.

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of this case for the two-year period of suspended sentence in the 8-month period is committed by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was unable to report or pay value-added tax even when he received money from the users in return for charging money by operating the illegal sports soil site. Such tax evasion act causes the damage to tax justice by hindering the national tax imposition and collection by making it difficult to impose and collect the national tax, thereby impairing the tax order, resulting in the damage to the public. Therefore, the crime is not less than that of the crime, the total amount of the evaded tax amount is not less than 80 million won, the Defendant does not pay all the evaded tax amount, and the Defendant does not pay the evaded tax amount, and the role and degree of participation in the crime requires a strict punishment for the Defendant.

However, the Defendant’s crime of this case takes into account equity in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with each crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive. The Defendant’s crime of this case is close to the accompanying crime of tax evasion in the course of committing the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambing, etc.) rather than for the purpose of tax evasion itself. The Defendant already served for a considerable period after having been sentenced to punishment for the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (Gambling, etc.), and reflects his mistake, and the Defendant’s age, growth process, family relationship, details and method of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc.

[Defendant B, C]

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one month but not more than ten years and not more than six months;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year;

[Determination of Punishment] General Evasion of Evasion of Taxes (at least 50 million won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Continuous and repeated crimes for at least two years.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, Imprisonment with labor for one year to two years.

* A/3 of the minimum sentence shall be mitigated by adding up the same kind of competition, resulting in a rise in one-stage category.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months;

Defendants, in collusion with A, etc., have an overseas office and have professional roles under the organizational division of roles.

- A planned operation of an illegal sports entertainment site is that the general public’s access to gambling is easy, thereby promoting an excessive gambling spirit and impairing sound labor awareness, and thus, the relevant criminal liability is not less exceptionally imposed on the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants were also evading a considerable amount of tax in the course of operating the instant gambling site. Defendant B was in charge of managing the instant gambling site after being detained, and Defendant C was in charge of an essential role in operating the instant gambling site, such as managing revenues after being detained, and Defendant C continued to commit a crime even after being detained, and the Defendants did not fully pay taxes evaded. In light of the above, the Defendants need to strictly punish the Defendants.

However, the part of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Defendants is close to accompanying the crime of tax evasion in the course of committing the crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (gambling, etc.), rather than for the purpose of tax evasion itself, taking into account various factors of sentencing as indicated in the arguments, including: (a) sentencing comparison among the accomplices taking into account the role and degree of participation in the crime; (b) sentencing comparison between the Defendants’ age, growth process; (c) family relationship; (d) details and method of the crime; and (e) circumstances before

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judge Political decoration

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

1) According to the public notice of the rate of expenses attributed to the instant gambling site in 2014, the simple expense rate of the 'gambling place operation business', which appears to be similar to the instant gambling site, is 35.4:

The simple expense rate of the "general game room" is 56.2 , 56.2 , the stadium, the stadium and similar stadium, and other simple expense rates are 75.8. Such a notice is given.

In light of the above, the simple expense rate of 88% applied by the prosecutor is to apply the simple expense rate of the similar type of business as publicly notified by the law to the defendants.

It seems that there is no circumstance to consider that the application of it is favorable and unreasonable.

2) The Defendants and their defense counsel analyzed the instant deposit account in order to dispute the period of use of the instant deposit account.

The account holder who recognized that he/she is the user of the gambling site is the account holder.

3) The Defendants’ crime of violation of the National Sports Promotion Act (such as gambling opening, etc.) and the establishment of gambling space are in the ordinary concurrent crimes, and the sentencing criteria are in the ordinary concurrent crimes.

Since no separate processing method is presented, the sentencing guidelines for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are not applied, and the sentencing guidelines for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are recommended.

only one reference is to be made.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.