Cases of misunderstanding the legal principles on the elements of Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

The so-called "tax obligor" that the tax obligor fails to pay within the due date shall not be deemed to meet the requirements for the crime of tax evasion.

Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 70No285 delivered on July 9, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 70No285 delivered on July 9, 1970

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Each ground of appeal is examined together with each one.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance that maintained and maintained the judgment of the court below, the defendant, who was subject to wholesale inspection, such as chemical drugs, in collusion with the non-indicted, sold all goods purchased by the company's instructions during the date of the explanation in collusion with the non-indicted, but did not pay taxes of KRW 17,635,821 and KRW 17,098,74,561 in total and KRW 18,734,561 in private business to the competent tax office within the payment deadline, and thus, the above tax was evaded by unlawful act. The summary of the crime in this regard was that the crime was committed by applying Article 9 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Specific Crimes Act to this so-called "the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and therefore, it cannot be understood that the so-called "tax payer" did not pay taxes within the payment deadline of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Thus, it cannot be understood that this constitutes a crime of tax evasion.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)