beta
Main Issues
Effective Requirements of Tax Officials’ Accusation
Summary of Judgment
Since a tax official’s accusation against a tax offense case requires that the person subject to it is specified, if only the facts, such as “the name and omitted name of ○○○,” etc., are stated in the written accusation by the head of the tax office, it cannot be deemed that it is an accusation against the defendant.
Escopics
Attorney Kim Jong-soo
Non-Medical Appellant
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul District Court Decision 71 High Court Decision 837,71 High High Court Decision 116,72 High Court Decision 72Gohap83,72 High Court Decision 938 decided May 12, 1972
Text
The summary appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The prosecutor’s summary grounds of appeal are examined.
According to Article 6 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, offenses provided for in the same Act shall be discussed by raising a complaint against the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the director of a regional tax office, or public officials engaged in tax affairs. According to Articles 8, 9 and 12 of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the director of a regional tax office, and the head of a tax office shall, in principle, notify the offender of the payment of the amount equivalent to a fine or a minor fine when he/she obtains a conviction. When the offender complies with the notification, the case shall be resolved ultimately: Provided, That if the offender does not comply with the notification period, he/she shall be accused if the offender does not have sufficient capacity to perform the act as notified, or if the offender is deemed to have failed to flee, or if the destruction of evidence is likely to escape, the court below's judgment on the charges shall be deemed to have been made immediately, and the appeal shall not be deemed to have been made with the same reasons for appeal as the first instance, and it shall not be deemed to have any error in the judgment on the remaining grounds for appeal.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)