(a) The number of crimes committed in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

(b) Whether the amount of defense cell tax evasion is included in the "amount of evasion tax" as provided in Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a single type of crime by combining the acts under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the elements of an aggravated reason that the annual amount of evaded tax is above a certain amount, and as such, it constitutes only one crime in the case of Article 8 of the same Act.

B. In the event that the defense tax, which is a national tax, is evaded by a deceitful or other unlawful act, it is clear that the crime of evasion falls under Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and even if there is no provision in the Defense Tax Act, it is punished under the above subparagraph 3, and Article 13 (2) of the Defense Tax Act provides that the punishment shall be imposed only by applying the provisions of Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act mutatis mutandis. Thus, the defense tax amount of a person who evades the defense tax, which is a national tax, by a deceitful or other unlawful act, shall be included in the "amount of evaded tax, etc." as provided in Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the act of evasion shall

(a) Article 8 (1) 1, Article 9 (1) 2, and Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 13 (2) of the Defense Tax Act, Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do938 delivered on June 22, 1982

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Jong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 82No353 delivered on August 20, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that among the facts charged in this case, the defendant's evasion of taxes by selling 237 large tape recorderss without attaching a stamp for 237 large tape recorderss is without proof of the crime as stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below's examination of the process of cooking evidence conducted by the court below in taking such measures is just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit.

(2) According to the records and the judgment of the court below, the court below held that Article 8 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Article 9 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is applicable to the evasion of value-added tax under Article 9 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders, and Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 9 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, since one act constitutes two crimes and Article 40 and 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be punished.

However, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for the statutory punishment for the crime of tax evasion by combining the acts provided for in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with an aggravated reason that the annual amount of tax evasion is above a certain amount, so only one crime shall be established (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do938 delivered on June 22, 1982). Meanwhile, Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "the person who evades the special consumption tax, liquor tax by deceit or other unlawful acts, subparagraph 2 provides that "the person who evades the liquor tax," subparagraph 3 provides that "the person who evades the national tax evasion by means of defense other than those provided for in subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall be punished by the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 13 (2) of the Defense Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the person who evades the defense duty other than the defense tax imposition by deceit and other unlawful acts provided for in Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

The judgment of the court below as to the escape of defense cells held by the defendant does not fall under Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)