Accusation by tax officials on violations of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and timing of cancellation thereof.

It is reasonable to interpret that the cancellation of accusation by the tax official on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act can be cancelled only before the judgment in the first instance.

Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Articles 232 and 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

The first instance court support, the second instance Gwangju District Court

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three months, but the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for one year.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel Kim Jong-man are as follows. On this case, the appeal by the head of Jung-Eup Tax Office of the short-term period of March 11, 4290 withdrawn the accusation (the withdrawal of the accusation is accepted by the Jeonju Local Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime Maritime

According to the main text of Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, an offense under this Act shall be raised to file a complaint with the head of the tax office, the head of the tax office, or the public official engaged in the tax affairs. Since this case is the case by the accusation of the head of the tax office of the Eup/Myeon, the accusation may be cancelled before the judgment of the court of first instance as to the time of cancellation of the complaint subject to victim's complaint (see Article 232, 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Although there is no express provision regarding the time of cancellation of the complaint, it can be done before the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the time of cancellation of the complaint subject to victim's complaint in wartime, and it is reasonable to interpret that the cancellation of the complaint cannot be permitted after the judgment of the court of first instance. However, even if the court of first instance has revoked the complaint, it is clear that the court of first instance will have the effect of cancellation of the complaint after the judgment of the court of first instance.

Next, the decision of the court below is ex officio that the default on the payment of harvest amount for several years due to the destruction of reservoir, etc., was accumulated, and the defendant has the ability to pay in bad faith the amount of pride, and the defendant can take the records that he paid in full the delinquent amount in February 4, 4290. Thus, in this day, the sentence like the original judgment shall be harsh, and the decision of the court below shall be reasonable at the time of reversal. Since the principal court's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 391 and Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the criminal facts and evidence theory that the principal court's direct decision is recognized is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment and the statement of evidence in Article 399 and Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 39 of the same Act.

The court below held that since the defendant's judgment in the law constitutes Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three months within the scope of the term of punishment, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year by applying Article 62 of the Criminal Act in consideration of the circumstances. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) and Justice Han Jin-jin, Justice Han-jin, Justice Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Justice)