logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2013.09.26 2013도5214
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The judgment below

Defendant B's violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of 2007 and each of them.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and I).

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (taxes) by Defendant B, A, and F and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

A. According to the records, the head of the final tax office may, upon the prosecutor’s request, recognize the facts identical to the facts charged of the violation of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same), prior to the prosecution of this case, he/she filed a criminal charge against the Defendant B.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above defendant's ground of appeal that this part of the indictment procedure against the defendant B is null and void in violation of the law.

B. For the purpose of Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 8 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Aggravated Punishment Act”), “Fraud and other unlawful act” refers to a deceptive scheme or other active act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and the crime of tax evasion constituted by tax evasion by such fraudulent or other unlawful act is not an intentional crime, and it does not require the defendant to evade or evade taxes, and the criminal intent is not required to commit such a crime of tax evasion, and the term “the person liable for tax payment” is aware that his act constitutes fraud and other unlawful act, and thereby, commits or attempts to commit a fraudulent act, recognizing that it constitutes a result of tax evasion.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do817 Decided June 29, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10968 Decided June 30, 201, etc.). The lower court is the Defendant.

arrow