The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the criminal proceedings where the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, whether the facts charged or the facts charged are identical should be determined depending on whether the basic facts are the same.

This cannot be understood only from the perspective of the identity of pure factual relations, and it is necessary to determine whether fundamental factual relations are substantially identical in consideration of normative factors, other than the Defendant’s act and the natural social factual relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994; 2016Do1526, Jan. 25, 2017). The judgment against the Defendant was finalized as a crime of violating the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “Capital Business Act”), and the criminal facts are that the Defendant sold similar petroleum products.

The facts charged of this case are that the Defendant, while manufacturing and selling the same similar petroleum products, has evaded taxes without filing a report on value added tax, etc.

Criminal facts committed in violation of the above Petroleum Business Act are different from the facts charged in this case due to the content of the act and the attitude of the act, and the benefit and protection of the law from the damage.

Therefore, the identity of basic facts cannot be acknowledged between the facts charged in violation of the Petroleum Business Act and the facts charged in the instant case (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16094, Feb. 9, 2012). In the same purport, the lower court’s res judicata does not extend to the instant facts charged.

The decision is justified.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the facts charged, relation to the crime, and res judicata without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. The former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Act No. 11, Jan. 1, 2013), which prescribes that “a person who evades a tax by manufacturing similar petroleum products” shall be punished for the interpretation of Article 5 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.