[1] The meaning of "Fraud and other unlawful act" under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[2] The case holding that only a failure to file a tax return does not constitute a fraudulent or other unlawful act in tax evasion

[1] "Fraud or other unlawful act" under 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 and collect taxes, and it does not constitute a mere failure to report under tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other act.

[2] The case holding that only a failure to file a tax return cannot be deemed as a fraudulent or other unlawful act in tax evasion

[1] Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do1518 delivered on March 8, 198 (Gong1988, 718) Supreme Court Decision 95Do2653 delivered on May 9, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1797) Supreme Court Decision 97Do2429 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1679Sang, 99Do667 delivered on April 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 9Sang, 927), Supreme Court Decision 9Do5191 delivered on February 8, 200 (Gong200Sang, 651), Supreme Court Decision 9Do5350 delivered on April 21, 200 (Gong1308, 20350)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm Barun Law, Attorney Kim Jae-ho

Suwon District Court Decision 2001No694 delivered on June 20, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

"Fraud and other unlawful acts" under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to fraudulent and other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and it does not constitute mere failure to report under the tax law or making a false report without accompanying any other acts (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do535, Apr. 21, 2000, etc.).

The court below found, based on the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance, that the defendant had registered the business on July 1, 1992 and operated the business of manufacturing and installing art decorations food brokerage business on July 1, 1992 and had the business registered ex officio by the competent authority on September 30, 1996. After that, the defendant continued to engage in the above brokerage business without filing a business registration and did not file a tax return; the defendant did not file a tax return; however, the court below determined that, in addition to the defendant's failure to file a tax return, the defendant ordered the owner to directly install the art decorations food production by the owner of the building in addition to the defendant's failure to file a tax return, and the prosecutor's assertion that the defendant committed an unlawful act by actively preparing a contract as if the contract was concluded between the owner of the building and the artist, is insufficient to prove that the defendant's failure to file a tax return cannot be deemed to constitute fraud or other unlawful act.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud or improper act in the crime of tax evasion, or in misconception of facts

The Supreme Court decision cited by the prosecutor in the ground of appeal is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since it differs from the case. The grounds of appeal are not accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)