The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal shows that most of the evidence related to the expenses paid by the defendant in China, which was presented by the defendant, was made ex post facto, and the defendant himself stated that the necessary expenses will be voluntarily appropriated in order to meet the ratio of revenue and expenditure from the tax accountant.

In full view of the fact that the testimony made by the investigative agency and that D’s ex post facto evidence presented at the court below as a witness is insufficient, it can be deemed that the Defendant evaded the comprehensive income tax by actively appropriating necessary expenses not actually paid by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant is a representative C, a company for electrical construction, etc. of automobile equipment, and (b) the Defendant filed a final return on the tax base of income tax belonging to 2009 at the same tax office located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, on May 29, 2010; (c) the facts are as follows: (a) from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the amount of rent, expendable goods, and other necessary expenses, including expenses for welfare, paid 663,403,273 won in total; (d) the Defendant paid the total amount of income tax by filing a return on the reduction of the amount of global income to the necessary expenses; (e) the amount of income tax paid from around 16, 2010 to the 15th of May 31, 2010 to the 20th of May 21, 2015.