A. Whether the goods are subject to taxation under the tax-related Acts on goods (affirmative)

(b) Examples of "Fraud or other unlawful acts" under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(a) Power distribution coffee or coffee constitutes a coffee that is an item subject to taxation on goods as provided in Article 1(1)4-2 of the repealed Goods Tax Act.

B. In a case where a taxpayer, who entered false statements in the sales amount different from the actual sales amount, prepared accounting records and standard statements to the contrary, and reported and paid taxes based on these statements, making it difficult to impose and collect taxes by preparing false books for the purpose of evading taxes, thereby constituting the act of evading taxes as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(a) Article 1 (1) and 4-2 (b) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

Supreme Court Decision 76Do4078 Delivered on May 10, 1977

Defendant 1 and three others

Attorney Seo-gu (for all the defendants)

Seoul High Court Decision 77No1157 delivered on December 17, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendants’ defense counsel’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3.

According to the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, the representative director of the corporation 2, Defendant 4, etc., and Defendant 4, the business leader of the corporation, in collusion with each other to reduce the sales price or omit the sales price, and did not pay the sales tax, defense tax and corporate tax as stated in the judgment, and did not pay the sales tax at source. In addition, Defendant 1 and 4 conspired with the other party working for the Seodaemun-gu office with money and entertainment as stated in the judgment, and provided a bribe to the non-indicted 1, the fact that the court of first instance offered the bribe by offering it to the non-indicted 2, such as the money and entertainment as stated in the judgment. There is no error of law by examining the evidence preparation process conducted by the court of first instance through the above fact-finding.

The issue at issue is that the distribution coffee and Lesa coffee sold by Defendant 2 did not correspond to the coffee stipulated in Article 1(1)4-2 of the Goods Tax Act (amended by Act No. 22. 22. 1976) which was in force at the time, and it does not constitute a subject of taxation of the goods tax. However, in full view of the fact that the first instance court was admitted as evidence, the first instance court determined that the process of distinguishing the coffees and then inserting them into the distribution machine and then putting them into the distribution machine, and then putting them into the distribution machine. The above coffees and coffees were cut through the above distribution process, and it is recognized that the above coffees can be consumed immediately if they were made in a narrow manner, and thus, the first instance court considered the process of distributing the goods in accordance with the above goods tax law to be the legitimate process of distributing the goods.

In addition, the so-called "the defendants' decision" lacks the awareness of illegality or does not constitute a crime because of legal mistake. However, in light of the evidence admitted by the court of first instance, it is difficult to deem that the defendants lack the awareness of illegality with respect to the act of tax evasion or mistake in the law such as the theory of lawsuit, and that there is a fact that the question questions and answers about whether the act of tax evasion is subject to the goods tax of this case, such as the theory of lawsuit inside the tax authorities, are not sufficient to recognize the defendants' legal error.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 4.

The fraud and other unlawful acts stipulated in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refer to the deception or other active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect the tax, and the failure to file a tax return under the tax law without accompanying any other acts is the same as the lawsuit that does not constitute such unlawful acts. However, according to the statement of the Defendants in the first instance trial and the facts established at the first instance trial, the Defendants prepared a daily sales slip which entered the sales amount differently from the actual sales amount, prepared the accounting account book and the standard account statement, and then reported and paid the goods tax, defense tax and the business tax in this case on the basis thereof. Thus, the Defendants cannot be said to have significantly difficulty in imposing and collecting the tax by preparing the aforementioned false account book for the purpose of evading the tax. Accordingly, it is unreasonable to argue that the Defendants’ act in this case does not constitute the evasion act stipulated in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

3. We examine the five grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, with regard to the defendants' act of evading goods taxes, defense taxes, and corporate business taxes, it is evident that they fall under the act of evading taxes under the former part of Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 2932, Dec. 22, 1976; Act No. 2936, Dec. 2, 1976; Act No. 2936); and it does not constitute the act of evading taxes or collecting taxes under the latter part of the main sentence of paragraph (1) of the same Article; therefore, it is legitimate that the defendants' act of evading goods taxes, defense taxes, and corporate business taxes constitutes the act of evading taxes or paying taxes in arrears under the latter part of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and therefore, the court below's decision is without merit, and it is without merit in the conclusion that Article 10 (1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was deleted under the same Act.

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

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)