The judgment below

Among the parts not guilty against Defendant A and those against Defendants B and C are reversed, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. “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 shall apply) 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 which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes.

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

In such a case, whether active concealment is objectively revealed shall be determined based on whether the basic book stating import or sale is falsely prepared, as well as on whether the method of determining the relevant tax is a tax return method or a tax imposition method, the circumstances leading to a failure to file a return or a false return, and the degree different from the facts; the specific details of the false matters in the case of a false report and the method of pretending to be false; and the function of the document related to the calculation of the tax base if a false document is submitted, the determination shall be made based on whether it can be recognized as

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13829 Decided February 21, 2014, etc.). 2. The lower court held that Defendant A and B paid the funds of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (mutual name after the alteration: AI, Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “C”) as the offering of rebates to Byung/wons and pharmacies, and that the amount exceeding the entertainment expense limit under the Corporate Tax Act out of the funds paid.