[1] Requirements for prosecution in the case of a tax offense case, and whether the court can examine the grounds for immediate accusation (negative)

[2] The meaning and standard of determining "justifiable cause" under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[1] Articles 9 and 12 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act / [2] Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 4293Do883 delivered on January 11, 1962 (Gong10-1, 3) Supreme Court Decision 73Do271 delivered on March 26, 1974 (Gong1974, 7785) Supreme Court Decision 94Do952 delivered on May 31, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2076) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2858 delivered on October 27, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2481) Supreme Court Decision 206Do5456 delivered on November 23, 2006)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Law Firm Taesung, Attorney Lee Jin-jin

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007No1489 Decided August 29, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In making an immediate accusation to the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders, there is no provision that the reasons for accusation shall be specified in the statement of accusation, and the right of immediate accusation to a tax official to recognize the existence or absence of special reasons shall be deemed to have been entrusted to the tax official for the purpose of having the tax official take appropriate measures according to the time when the tax official grants the right of immediate accusation to the tax official. Therefore, if there is a tax official's immediate accusation with respect to the case of a tax offense, the requirements for prosecution shall be satisfied, and if the court decides on the merits of the case, it shall not be examined as to the reasons for immediate accusation (see Supreme Court Decisions 4293Do883, Jan. 11, 1962; 73Do2711, Mar. 26, 1974; 94Do952, May 31, 1996).

In the same purport, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant accusation was lawful by the head of the same tax office without a notification disposition against the Defendants without stating the reasons for the immediate accusation. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles

Supreme Court Decision 4290Ma247 Decided November 1, 1957 cited in the ground of appeal by the defense counsel is the same purport as the Supreme Court Decision 4293Ma883 Decided January 11, 1962, which was repealed by the Supreme Court Decision 4293Ma83 Decided July 19, 1957, and it is not appropriate to invoke the case in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The term "justifiable cause" under Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act means a cause for which a taxpayer is unable to do so with the mind, such as due to a natural disaster, fire, war, or other disaster, or theft. In determining the existence of a justifiable cause, it shall be determined individually according to a specific case by taking into account the circumstances of delinquency, delinquent amount, and period in full consideration of the legislative intent of the punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2858, Oct. 27, 2000; 2006Do5456, Nov. 23, 2006).

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendants failed to pay each of the taxes of this case without justifiable grounds, considering the circumstances such as the value-added tax collected and paid by the customer as well as the wage and salary tax withheld at the time of paying wages to employees, and determined that the defendants' assertion that the taxes of this case occurred in the business sector operated by the non-indicted who was the joint representative director of the defendant company and was in arrears even though the non-indicted was paid by the non-indicted, does not constitute a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the taxes of this case. The court below's findings of fact and determination by the court below are acceptable in light of the above legal principles and records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)