Defendant

Stack-in-house

Law Firm Barun, Attorney Park Jae-il

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months, and a fine of 4.8 billion won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of 20 million won into one day.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Around April 18, 2002, the Defendant registered each business in the name of ○○○○○○ (place of business: 2 in Jung-gu, Seoul) (place of business: 3 in Jung-gu, Seoul): on October 15, 2005 (place of business: 1 omitted); on September 5, 2005, △△△△△ (place of business registration: 3 in Jung-gu, Seoul: 2 omitted) in the name of Defendant’s wife Nonindicted 1; on February 2, 2005, in the name of Defendant’s wife Nonindicted 2, 2005 (place of business registration: 3 in Jung-gu, Seoul); and on May 18, 2005, in the name of Defendant’s wife Nonindicted 3 in the name of Jung-gu, Seoul (place of business registration: 4 in Seoul and 3 omitted); and on May 18, 2005, the Defendant registered each of the above business districts under the name of 3 in fact.

1. From January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007, the Defendant: (a) received orders from small and medium-sized printing companies, etc. across the country to deliver printed matters related to the name cards; (b) supplied them through the Internet; (c) made some transactions as non-data; and (d) made separate books by omitting the sales revenue traded as above in the electronic computer system at the time of tax return; and (c) opened 14 borrowed accounts in the name of Nonindicted 4, wife, Nonindicted 5, and ASEAN, Nonindicted 6, and 7, etc.; (b) reported 7,20,834,00 won in total for the year 200, 11,254, 80, 2000, 207, 2006, 2007, 206, 2007, 206, 2007, 2006, 2007, 2006, 2007, 306, 7, 200.

2. The Defendant, as a person responsible for withholding taxes, has not collected or paid the collected taxes without justifiable cause, as a person responsible for withholding taxes:

In order to conceal the fact that the amount of revenue and sale was appropriated under paragraph (1) from January 2004 to December 2007, 2007, the amount of 1,335,506,000 won for personnel expenses of 2004 was insufficiently appropriated in the account book, and the source tax of 8,68,000 won was not collected based on this, and the source tax was not collected from 2004 to 2007 as shown in the attached crime list (2).

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of Nonindicted 8’s witness in the third protocol of trial

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 4, 5, and 8

1. A written accusation, a written accusation, the date of the offense, the facts of the offense, the annual reported amount and the amount of evaded tax, each investigation report, each confirmation document (Evidence List Nos. 18, 39 through 41), the details of calculation of the amount omitted in sales, one of the P&P wage data, the investigation report on the relevant suspected case, the analysis sheet by type of tax offense, the details of deposits by account, the list of accounts not issued, the statement, each statement, and the details of payment of annual salary in 203 and 204;

1. The assertion;

A. The Defendant merely did not file a tax return under the tax law or filed a false tax return, and does not evade the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax by “Fraud or other unlawful acts.”

B. In calculating the amount of value-added tax and global income tax evasion, it is unlawful to calculate the amount of tax evasion based on the calculation of sales amount which should not be included in the sales amount, and sales amount which was revoked after the order of KRW 5 billion, and sales amount by computer error, etc. which should not be included in the sales amount, and to calculate the amount of tax evasion by means of an annual estimation investigation without properly treating actual expenses, etc. as costs.

C. Since one crime of tax evasion is established by each taxpayer, the prosecution on the crime of tax evasion should be instituted separately by each taxpayer. However, the prosecutor’s charges of this case are unlawful since the prosecutor’s instant charges were filed by combining all the businesses actually operated by the defendant, and are calculated by including the amount of tax evasion.

D. With respect to nonperformance of withholding duty, there is “justifiable cause” in the event that an employee subject to withholding did not receive a source tax return on his/her own by withdrawing the amount of KRW 100,000 from his/her wage to be deducted under the pretext of medical insurance premiums, etc., and the Defendant also did not withhold a withholding duty even if he/she did not make a report.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether a “Fraud or other unlawful act” is “Fraud or other unlawful act”

The aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor's office and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, and ① the defendant filed a value-added tax return with the tax office only for the sales of the enterprise that actually operated the business through the customer management program despite the defendant's accurate knowledge of the sales of the enterprise. ② The defendant purchased necessary raw materials to maintain the printing business of paper, etc. and did not issue a tax invoice to the purchaser. Furthermore, the defendant did not issue a tax invoice for the sales amounting to approximately 62% of the sales amount while manufacturing and selling name cards, etc., and ③ the defendant did not issue a tax invoice for the sales amounting to the above 62% of the sales amount. Although he operated one printing business, the defendant did not use the name of the defendant's wife, his wife and his employees while running the printing business, and completed the business registration under his name and filed a tax return for each person under his own name; ④ The defendant did not have any obligation to collect taxes in addition to the account in his name and the name of the business operator who completed the most business registration with the opposite contractual party.

B. Determination on the evaded tax amount

The aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecution of the defendant and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant, ① there is no evidence to prove the sales amount claimed by the defense counsel, and the tax authority against this point is 73,645,089,00 won, which is the total revenue amount recorded in the computer account managed by the defendant, after deducting 3% of the total revenue amount (the above ratio itself is deemed to have been duly calculated by integrating the statements of the defendant and related data) due to the cancellation of sales and the reduction of sales amount due to the computer error, etc. In addition, the tax authority calculated the above five companies' actual sales amount to be 70,585,767,000 won by deducting the aforementioned five companies' total revenue amount to be appropriated for 849,969,00 won and the above 50,000 won (in cases of tax credit for losses, the tax authority shall reasonably calculate the sales amount from the above 17-2 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act). In addition, considering the probability that the tax base of the defendant's total revenue amount to be appropriated 36064,

1,559,245,00 won, 16,239,000 won, 239,015,000 won, 200 won, 17,877,229,000 won, 200 won, 200 won, 17,161,728,000 won, 2,33,94,000 won, which was corrected for the taxable year described in the main sentence of the Table included in the

C. Determination on taxpayers

In principle, a taxpayer who is the subject of the crime of tax evasion refers to a taxpayer under Article 2 subparagraph 9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (a person liable to pay national taxes under tax-related Acts). In the case of value-added tax, a person who independently supplies goods and services for business pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be a taxpayer of value-added tax, and in the case of global income tax, a resident, etc. who has a domestic address or has a domicile for not less than one year shall be a taxpayer of global income tax, who is a taxpayer of global income tax

On the other hand, when there is a separate person to whom income, transaction, etc. actually accrue under the principle of substantial taxation, such person to whom income, transaction, etc. actually accrue, is not the formal nominal owner, but the person to whom such income, transaction, etc. actually accrues, shall be deemed the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do21

In light of the above legal principles, the above five companies are individuals who actually supplied goods or services, separate from the name of the formal business registration, and the person who actually belongs to the income related to the above five companies is the defendant, in addition to ○○○○○, △△△△, △△△△, △△△, and △△△△, in addition to the business registration completed in the name of the defendant. The five companies can recognize the fact that the above five companies are not all corporations, and the above five companies are private individuals.

Therefore, the defendant should be punished for a violation of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) by a year of evasion by adding the amount of tax evaded annually to the defendant who is liable for tax payment.

D. Determination on the existence of “justifiable cause”

"Justifiable reason" under Article 11 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) means a reason that a withholding agent is unable to perform his/her duties in mind, such as natural disasters, fire, fire, telephone, or other disaster, or theft, that is, grounds for excluding or excluding the illegality of, and excluding liability for, the defendant, who is a withholding agent in a relationship with the tax office (the rejection of a taxpayer and the site of a law), is not deemed to have justifiable grounds for failing to perform his/her withholding duties. Thus, this part of the defense counsel's assertion is rejected.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Points of evading value-added tax for the first period of January 2004: the main sentence of Article 8 and Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 9(1)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Appointment of Imprisonment);

(b) The fact that each of the global income tax in 2004, the second half-year value-added tax in 2004, and the first half-year value-added tax in 2005 is evaded: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 7767 of Dec. 29, 2005) and Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7767 of Dec. 29

(c) Each evasion of the global income tax in 2005, the second half-year value-added tax in 2005, and the first half-year value-added tax in 2006: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (or both choice of imprisonment and fine)

(d) Each evasion of the global income tax in 2006, the second half-year value-added tax in 2006, and the first half-year value-added tax in 2007: Article 8(1)1 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (or both choice of imprisonment and fine)

(e) Point of evading value-added tax for the second period of 2007: Article 9 (1) 3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Selection of Imprisonment);

(f) Point of failure to withhold taxes: Each former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Article 11 (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 4 (1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act [in cases of imprisonment, the punishment and imprisonment shall be imposed on global income tax in 2005 with the largest penalty, global income tax in 2005, value-added tax in 2005, and concurrent penalty for a penalty prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (tax) due to the evasion of value-added tax in January 2006, and the sum of fines prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Determination of sentence;

(a) Imprisonment: Two years and six months;

(b) Determination and addition of fines;

1) A crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Tax) due to the tax evasion of the global income tax in 2004, the second value-added tax in 2004, and the first value-added tax in 2005: one billion won

2) A crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Tax) due to the tax evasion of global income tax in 2005, 2005, 2005, and 1.8 billion won

3) A crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Tax) due to the tax evasion of global income tax in 2006, the second value-added tax in 2006, and the first value-added tax in 2007: 1.7

(d) Aggregate amount: 4.8 billion won; and

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following consideration for repeated consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Considering the fact that not only the Defendant evaded income tax and value-added tax for several years by actively issuing tax invoices, borrowing the name of business operator, and using a borrowed account, but also failed to perform the withholding duty in the process, the total amount of evaded tax amounts to KRW 5,406,713,000, and the nature and criminal circumstances of each of the crimes of this case are very poor, and that such crime disturbs the national tax collection order and seriously damages the tax justice, the Defendant shall be subject to punishment corresponding thereto.

However, the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment yet, 878,259,310 won out of the evaded tax amount through the tax payment and default procedure of the defendant, and the apartment house, the only property of the defendant, is seized, and it is expected that additional tax will be paid according to the delinquent procedure in the future. In the case of the evasion of value-added tax, there are the aspects that the defendant's failure to issue the tax invoice properly is committed to live in the limited competition with other printing companies, the profits actually acquired by the defendant due to tax evasion are smaller than the evaded tax amount, and the execution of imprisonment is determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions in the trial process of the case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judge Han Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)