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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. “Fraud or other unlawful act” in the crime of tax evasion under Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) refers to the act of making it possible to evade taxes, i.e., the act of making it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, i.e. the deceptive scheme or other affirmative act that is considered unlawful by social norms.

Therefore, it does not constitute mere failure to report under the tax law without accompanying other acts or making a false report. However, in addition to the circumstances where active concealment intention appears, such as failure to report or underreporting the taxable object and intentional omission of import or sale in the account book, it can be recognized that the imposition and collection of taxes are impossible or remarkably difficult.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003; 201Do13605, Mar. 15, 2012; 201Do13605, Mar. 15, 2012). Therefore, the mere failure to file a tax return or filing a false tax return without accompanying other acts does not constitute the mere failure to file a tax return or filing a false tax return. However, in cases where the circumstances indicate the intention of active concealment, such as failure to file a tax return or filing a false tax return, and intentionally failing to enter revenues or sales, etc. in the account book, the imposition

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3797, Feb. 14, 2003; 201Do13605, Mar. 15, 2012).

The lower court: (1) the Defendant, who is a business income, received brokerage commission, business support money, and so on from German related companies.