[1] The time when the act of evading value-added tax was committed

[2] The case holding that the act of tax evasion committed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes which does not require any accusation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, was unlawful where the court recognized the amount of tax evasion as a violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act,

[1] Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the time when an act of tax evasion under Article 9 of the same Act is committed shall be when the time when the time limit for payment expires after the Government's decision or review on the tax base of the pertinent item is made in the case of taxes imposed and collected by the taxpayer's report, and when the time limit for payment expires in the case of taxes not corresponding to the above time limit. Thus, the act of tax evasion of value-added tax under each of Articles 3 (1) and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes an act of violation from January 1 to June 30, 19 of the first term portion, and from July 1 to December 31 of the second term portion, 25 days after the end of each taxable period.

[2] In a case where a person was indicted for a violation of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to the case where the amount of evaded tax exceeds one billion won a year, but the court below reduced the amount of evaded tax within the scope of the same charges and recognized it as a crime of violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the case holding that the court is unlawful to recognize the violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, since the crime of violation of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not required to be prosecuted under Article 16 of the same Act, but the crime of violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act may be prosecuted by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. under Article 6 of

[1] Articles 9 and 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 3 (1) and Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act / [2] Articles 6 and 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 8 (1) 1 and Article 16 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do746 delivered on July 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2115)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sol, Attorney Park Jae-in

Seoul High Court Decision 2007No1991 decided January 10, 2008

Of the judgment below, the part on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the No. 3 and No. 4 of the attached Table 3 (3) is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to each of the crimes listed in the [Attachment 3] Nos. 3 and 4 of the List of Crimes (3) in the judgment of the court below

A. Article 9-3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the time when an act of tax evasion under Article 9 of the same Act was committed shall be when the time when the time limit for payment expires after the Government made a decision or examination on the tax base of the relevant tax item in the case of taxes imposed and collected by the taxpayer's report, and when the time limit for payment expires in the case of taxes not corresponding to the above time limit for payment. Thus, an act of tax evasion of value-added tax under Articles 3 (1) and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes an act of violation of Article 25 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act from January 1 to June 30, 19 of the first term portion under Articles 3 (1) and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act and from July 1 to December 31 of the second term portion (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do746, Jul. 23, 2002).

Therefore, in this case, the court below's decision that the defendant's evasion of value-added tax [the crime of crime list (3) No. 3 in the attached sheet of crime No. 3 in the time of sale] among the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2006 (from July 1, 2006 to September 30 of the same year) was committed after the lapse of January 25, 2007, which is the second quarter of the return and payment deadline of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2006, was just and there was no error of law as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 1.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, among the facts charged in this case, the charge of evading value-added tax in 2007 (the crime Nos. 3 and 4 of the crime chart (the crime No. 3) among the crimes charged in the case of this case was charged in violation of Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to the case where the amount of evaded tax is at least one billion won per year, but the court below recognized the amount of evaded tax to be reduced to be KRW 479,296,510, and recognized the amount of evaded tax to be reduced to be reduced to KRW 479,296,510 as stated in the judgment of the court below within the scope of the same facts charged, and

However, the crime of violation of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not required to be accused in the indictment under Article 16 of the same Act. However, the crime of violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act may be prosecuted in the indictment by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. pursuant to Article 6 of the same Act. On the records, the court below acknowledged the crime of violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as the crime of violation of Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the absence of accusation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. against the above 2007.

2. As to the crimes listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 in [3] Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the holding of the court below

With respect to this part of the grounds of appeal, the appellate brief did not submit the grounds of appeal, and the petition of appeal did not contain any grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the No. 3 and No. 4 of the attached Table 3 of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)