The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in holding otherwise, although the use of a family borrowed account alone cannot be deemed as a tax evasion by fraud or other unlawful act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, Defendant B: fine of 30 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to an act of allowing the Defendants to evade taxes, which is an act deemed unfair under social norms, i.e., a deceptive scheme which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, or other active act which is deemed unfair under social norms. It does not constitute mere failure to file a return under tax law or making a false return without accompanying any other act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003). However, where active concealment of the circumstances, such as the failure to file a tax base or return and the exchange and return of means of payment, such as false entry and check, and the repeated use of several borrowed accounts, the imposition and collection of value-added tax or the sales of value-added tax may be recognized as being impossible or considerably difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003; 2008Do697, Apr. 6, 1996, 2009).