The meaning of "Fraud and other unlawful acts" as prescribed in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

The term "Fraud and other unlawful acts" as provided in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act means the fraudulent and other active acts which are deemed to be unfair by social norms in order to enable tax evasion, and which make the imposition, collection of taxes impossible or remarkably difficult, and it does not constitute improper acts to simply make a report or make a false report under the tax law without accompanying any other acts.

Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do214 delivered on February 28, 1984, 85Do80 delivered on September 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 87Do294 delivered on April 28, 1987

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Attorney Shin Shin-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 83No690,1046 decided Feb. 25, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

The fraud or other wrongful act stipulated in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose or collect taxes if it is the act that makes it possible to evade taxes, and it does not constitute an unlawful act if it is a fraudulent act without accompanying any other act (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do214, Feb. 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 87Do294, Apr. 28, 1987).

Therefore, the court below held that the interest income in the year 1978 and 1979 was deposited in several bank accounts under the same view, but it is acknowledged that the defendant deposited it in his real name and Kim Jong-he Kim, but it can be traded with several banks at his own convenience or at the bank's recommendation, and it cannot be raised as a tree regardless of his funds deposited in any of the old accounts. At the time of this case, the name or bearer deposit was generalized before the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions (Act No. 3607 of Dec. 31, 1983) was reached, other funds than the interest income was deposited in the above provisional account, and the real name interest income in the year 1978 and 1979 was much more than the amount of his own interest income through the old account, and since the entire real name of the 1980s interest income was deposited in the old account, it cannot be determined that the above fraud or other illegal account was not a special reason to be deposited in the old account.

In addition, even if the defendant reported only business income at the time of filing a final return on global income tax and omitted the return on interest income, it can be viewed as a whole income, and it is only a under-reported return if it is viewed as an interest income, and it cannot be said that it is a fraud or other unlawful act.

Furthermore, even if the defendant lent money to another person and completed part of the provisional registration in the establishment of the provisional registration as a collateral, or the defendant responded that there is no interest income in the tax investigation, such act cannot be said to be an active act as stated above, and it should not be deemed that there is no direct relationship between the debtor and the tax evasion.

In the case of this case, even if the defendant's act is considered as a whole through the records of the case, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act constitutes a deceptive scheme or other unlawful act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose or collect taxes. Therefore, it is unreasonable to discuss this issue.

With respect to the second ground:

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below accepted the fact-finding that the defendant engaged in the above apartment project with Nonindicted Party 1 in relation to the tax evasion portion arising from the apartment project in 1981, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of litigation and the fact-finding by the court below as to this part, and therefore there is no reason to criticize the fact, which is a whole authority of the court below, which is the fact-finding.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel.

With respect to No. 1:

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below as to the withdrawal of transfer income tax on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay that was transferred to the applicant's house. According to the statement at the court of the court below held by the witness, the repreparation of sales contract after the date of intermediate payment concerning the sale and purchase of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay was made according to the defendant's original intent and there was no fact that the defendant paid the transfer income tax (the fifth trial records of the court below) and was involved in the claimed house (the fifth trial records of the court below). The defendant did not show that there was an error of violating the rules of evidence in the court below's fact-finding as to this part, and according to the reasoning of the court below, the court below did not recognize the amount of evaded tax on the leased income of the Mamamaar restaurant as global income tax amounting to KRW 3,253,140, 650, and 3903,781).

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is the theory that the acquisition value and transfer value (the case where the actual transaction value was the standard market value) which form the basis for calculating the amount of evaded tax in recognizing the fact of evading capital gains tax shall be the same as the theory of lawsuit that the court below did not specify the acquisition value and transfer value in its explanation of the part concerning the transfer and the omission of capital gains tax due to the transfer and acquisition of an indoor apartment. However, according to the case records, it is evident that the court below calculated the amount of evaded tax according to the final resolution of the 1980 portion of income tax (the capital gains tax) in the 1980-year preparation of the new Tax Credit for the Tax Credit for the Tax Credit for the Tax Credit and the basis for calculating the capital gains tax, and it cannot be said that the omission of entry in the transfer value would affect the judgment. Therefore, it

With respect to the second ground:

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the part that the court below made a false sales contract "sales contract" with respect to the land secured by the defendant in recompense for development outlay sold to Daegu Housing in order to reduce capital gains tax and its defense tax, which was purchased on June 27, 1979 in order for the defendant to have the land secured by the development recompense for development recompense for the defendant's purchase of the land secured by the development recompense for development recompense for the above development recompense for the defendant's purchase of the land on April 24, 1974 (no. 4.25 on April 25, 197), which was recognized by the court below in order to reduce the transfer income tax and its defense tax, should be viewed as a case where the defendant submitted a certified copy of the register, which was purchased on June 27, 1979, and submitted to the court below for the last day of the purchase of the above land on June 27, 197, which would constitute a case where the ground for registration is somewhat different from the case where the defendant uses the method of the profits generated profits.

With respect to the third point:

The judgment of the court below that the Defendant evaded capital gains tax on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay sold to Daegu Housing by fraud, and the fact-finding of the court below that the Defendant operated the non-indicted 1 and the commercial apartment business in partnership with the business of the non-indicted 1 and the commercial apartment is justified as above, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of litigation and the fact-finding in this part.

With respect to the fourth point:

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the fact-finding of the court below that recognized intimidation, such as the time of the original trial, is also acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and the testimony in the court of first instance in the new state of the witness present has no credibility or there is no criminal intent of intimidation to the defendant, and it does not seem that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the facts of intimidation which the court below found guilty. The argument is

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)