The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appeal filed by a defense counsel after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal)

A. 1) Claim for misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are limited to the fact that the Defendant’s act did not constitute “Fraud or other unlawful act” and only reported by the Defendant by omitting the interest income, and there was no active act such as deception, or manipulating or forging the account books, etc., the Defendant’s act was before the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010).

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception of facts, which held that the Defendant constituted “Fraud or other unlawful act” as stipulated in Article 9(1)3. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant omitted the deduction of bad debt when calculating the taxable income amount, caused a large amount of loss due to the failure to recover the leased principal due to the company reorganization procedure or bankruptcy procedure or the de facto suspension of business. Although such loss should be deducted from the taxable income amount due to bad debt, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and erroneous determination of facts.

3) The judgment of the court below that calculated the evaded tax amount by including the additional tax can not be included in the amount of the evaded tax, because the additional tax had the nature of the penalty originally and it is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 4) The time when the prior interest income was erroneously determined in the year to which the prior interest was paid was erroneously, and the time when the corresponding period was exceeded. Thus, in relation to the amount of the evaded tax in 2004, the defendant received 165,000,000 won from S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) as of December 23, 2004, which was paid by the defendant as of December 23, 2004.