(a) Whether failure to report the tax base and amount of tax or failure to keep the trade book constitutes an unlawful act under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (negative);

B. Whether embezzlement is established in a case where one shareholder voluntarily consumes the company's property that he/she keeps in his/her business (affirmative)

A. It cannot be deemed that there was active misconduct stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the ground that a taxpayer did not report the tax base and the amount of value-added tax at the competent tax office or did not keep the account books required

B. If the Defendant voluntarily consumes the company’s property in its custody even though the Defendant is a de facto one shareholder in a stock company, the criminal intent of embezzlement cannot be denied.

(a) Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Do4078 delivered on May 10, 1978, 4288Do245 delivered on March 9, 1956, 73Do2611 delivered on April 23, 1974, 80Do537 delivered on April 13, 1982

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 82No2900 Decided February 10, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The twenty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment of the accused.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

The court below's determination that the defendant did not report the tax base and amount of value-added tax to the district tax office having jurisdiction over the district tax office after the closure of the business under the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders cannot be viewed as having committed fraud and other unlawful acts as stipulated in Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the ground that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud and other unlawful acts under the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, and it cannot be viewed as having committed active misconduct on the ground that there was no reason that the defendant did not keep

2. The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are examined together.

Examining the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance compared with the records, it is sufficient to prove the criminal facts against the defendant in the original judgment, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any illegality or lack of reason in violation of the rules of evidence, and the reason that the defendant was a single-person shareholder cannot be denied the criminal intent of embezzlement. Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal by the defendant is to be included in the imprisonment under Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)