(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that there was an error of misconception of facts against the rules

B. Summary of a prosecution against tax evasion before the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and accusation by tax officials

(c) Whether there exists a benefit from appeal against a judgment dismissing public prosecution;

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the ground that there was an error of misconception of facts against the

B. If a public prosecution was instituted for a violation of Article 8 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, before the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evasion by Act No. 3280 on December 18, 1980, and the court continued to exist in relation to the act of tax evasion by the defendant, the above Act was amended, and the amount of tax evasion under Article 8 (1) 2 of the above Act was changed from five million won to twenty million won per annum, and thus, it is unnecessary to file a tax official's accusation pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the above Act even if the tax official's accusation is imposed pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act,

C. The essence of an appeal filed against a defendant is to correct a judgment disadvantageous to a defendant and request a judgment favorable to him/her. Therefore, the defendant cannot have the right to appeal unless the judgment is disadvantageous to him/her. When a judgment dismissing a public prosecution is rendered, the defendant has returned to the state where the public prosecution was not instituted, thereby deviating from the risk of conviction, and the judgment is not disadvantageous to the defendant.

A. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 327 and Article 338 of the

C. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3076 delivered on December 13, 1983, decided 87Do941 delivered on June 9, 1987

Defendant 1 and two others

Both (Defendant 1) Prosecutor (Defendant 2) (Defendant 3)

Attorney Kim Jong-young (for the defendant 1,2,3)

Gwangju High Court Decision 82No328 delivered on June 28, 1985

The entire part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1, the dismissed part against Defendant 2, and the guilty part against Defendant 3 limited liability company shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3 Limited Company and its state appointed defense counsel.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Defendant 3 as well as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 as employees of the same defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to be guilty of the amount of KRW 480,00,000,000,000,000 71,50,270,000 won 78,000,000 won and 48,000,000,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 28,000,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 9,000,000 won and 9,000 won and 2,000 won and 38,000 won and 9,00 won and 18,00 won and 2,000 won and 9,00 won and 2,08,00 won and 38,00 won.

(2) We examine the records. The evidence cited by the court of first instance, which the court below admitted as guilty, is the record verification protocol concerning the case of the defendant's case for which the court of first instance 82-Gu 23 corporate tax, etc. is requested to revoke the disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, which is employed by the court of first instance. According to the contents, the statement by the defendant 1 among the first and the seventh trial records, and the statement by the same defendant prepared by the prosecutor, which denies the act of tax evasion of the same defendant. The testimony by the witness in the first and the second trial records, the first instance court's testimony by the witness in the second trial records, the first and second trial records, the first and second trial records, the first and second trial records, each of the testimony by the witness in the second trial records, the second and third trial records, the statement by the witness Kim Jong-tae among the 8th trial records, the statement by the witness in the first and second trial records, the statement by the defendant 3's representative or the above employee's testimony in the first and second trial records, each of the defendant's testimony.

(3) Therefore, considering whether the above contents of evidence can be trusted or believed, Defendant 2 responded to the prosecutor's above facts charged at the first instance trial of the court of first instance, but according to the 8th trial records, Defendant 2 denied the above facts of tax evasion by Defendant 3's limited liability company, and there is no consistency in the statement, and according to the above statements, it is hard to recognize that Defendant 1, 1, 2, and 2, as an employee of the tax office, it is hard to recognize the above facts of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or the above facts of violation of the 1, 2, as well as the above facts of violation of the 1, 2, 2, 1980, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3.

(4) Nevertheless, the court below's finding Defendant guilty of the above facts charged by the employees of the limited liability company of Defendant 3 by employing evidence which is difficult to believe that the statement is obstructed or easily constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on Defendant 1 and 2.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 1 and Defendant 2 on February 17, 1979 to July 6, 197; Defendant 2 was 31,852,458 won in total by means of fraud, such as double selling, and reported to the tax office at KRW 6,870,657; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not pay taxes of KRW 7,180,107 within 9.7 years in total; Defendant 1 and 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and carried out an act of defense 50,000 won during the period from 10,000 won to 97.7 years in total; Defendant 2 and thus, Defendant 1 and 2 were not subject to tax evasion, including value-added tax; Defendant 3 and 4.7 years in total from 97 years in tax evasion; and Defendant 1 and 97 years in tax evasion by way of fraud during the period from February 20, 1978.

(2) However, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was amended by Act No. 3280, Dec. 18, 1980, provides that a transitional provision does not require any accusation after the enforcement of this Act with respect to a case pending before the court due to an offense under Articles 6 and 8 as at the time this Act enters into force. According to the records, it is clear that the case was already prosecuted on November 1, 19 of the same year before the amendment of the Act No. 3280, and that it was pending before the court at the time of the enforcement of the Act, and therefore, it is unnecessary for a tax official to file an accusation, even though the court below did not have any accusation by the person who has the right to file an accusation

This paper is reasonable.

3. Defendant 1 and 2's grounds of appeal are examined.

The main point of the argument is to the purport that although there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of tax evasion against the above Defendants, it is unreasonable for the court below to render a judgment of dismissing the public prosecution without finding innocence against the above Defendants, and since the appeal for the defendant is based on the nature of the defendant's claim for a judgment disadvantageous to the defendant by correcting a disadvantageous judgment against him/her, the defendant cannot have a right to appeal unless he/she gives any disadvantage to him/her, and the judgment of dismissing the public prosecution goes beyond the risk of conviction due to the return to the state where the public prosecution was not instituted, the judgment is not disadvantageous to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do941 delivered on June 9, 1987). The argument is groundless.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the defendants cannot be reversed. As to the defendants 1 and 3 limited liability company, the above facts charged and the remaining convictions are in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As to the defendant 1, the whole judgment of the court below against the same defendant against the defendant 3 limited liability company is reversed, and the whole convictions against the defendant 3 limited liability company are reversed, and the defendant 2 is remanded to the Gwangju High Court for further proceedings consistent with this part of the case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)