1. Crimes committed under Article 8 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

2. The prescription of a prosecution against the crime under Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

1. The crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which evades corporate tax and corporate business tax, shall be deemed to be established by the taxable period, and the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which evades the goods tax, by the month of each payment period. The crime of violating Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be deemed to be committed by one by each

2. Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a single type of crime by combining the acts under Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the elements of an aggravated reason that annual evaded tax amount is more than a certain amount, and the statute of limitations is determined based on the statutory penalty under the same Act.

Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 249 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court (75 Gohap917, 76 Gohap61)

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three years and by a fine of twenty thousand won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 500,000 into one day.

One hundred and eighty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

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

Of the facts charged in this case, the defendant (1) in collusion with the non-indicted 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court below, and thus, the defendant evades 3,909,38 won in total and corporate tax for the business year from December 1, 1972 to November 30, 1973 and corporate business tax for the same business year from November 30, 1973, and (2) in collusion with the non-indicted 6, 7, and 8, which will be imposed on the non-indicted 9 corporation by unlawful means, and the prosecution against the fact that the defendant evaded corporate tax for each business year from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974 and the corporate tax for the same business year to be imposed on the non-indicted 10 corporation is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is that the court below calculated the combinations, which are the raw materials required for the portion omitted in the sale of non-indicted 12 Co-defendant 12, by the weight not included in 15 percent of the total amount as to the portion omitted in the sale of the non-indicted 12 Co-defendant 12, and deducted the amount equivalent to 3 percent of the reduced amount from the cost, and recognized the amount of tax evaded by deducting 3 percent of the reduced amount in the cost calculation as to the portion omitted in the sale of the non-indicted 5 Co-defendant 5, respectively, based on the grounds that it cannot be recognized in the tax calculation, since this is based on the grounds that the entry in the above appraisal statement is adopted, rejected each of the above statements in the court below of the non-indicted 13 and 14 of the witness, and found the above facts against the rules of evidence, and the sentencing of the court below against

The gist of the judgment below is that the evidence of the court below stated in the above facts of the crime is insufficient to acknowledge the facts of the crime, and the witness's statements are not reliable against the regulations of the court below, and it can be seen that the defendant participated in the crime of this case or did not commit the crime. Thus, the court below acknowledged the facts of the crime of this case against the defendant without evidence, and it is hard for the defendant to recognize that the defendant's act of tax evasion under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was customarily continued from 15 to 7 of the facts of this case, and because the defendant's act of tax evasion was committed under Article 9 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders for the purpose of punishing the defendant's 7 years since it is hard to view that the defendant's act of tax evasion was committed under Article 9 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders for the reason that the defendant's act of tax evasion was committed under Article 9 of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders and the defendant's act of tax evasion was committed under Article 97 of the Act.

2. In full view of the evidence in the statement of the judgment below and the statement made by Non-Indicted 1, the representative director of Non-Indicted 5 Co. 5 and Non-Indicted 1 in the trial records before remanding, the court below's judgment against the defendant can fully recognize the remainder of the crime except for the following facts: the corporate tax and the amount of tax evasion for the taxable period from December 1, 1972 to November 30, 1973, the corporate tax evasion for Non-Indicted 5 Co. 5, the corporate tax evasion for Non-Indicted 10, the corporate tax evasion for Non-Indicted 9, and the corporate tax evasion for Non-Indicted 9, the corporate tax evasion for Non-Indicted 9, the amount of tax evasion for Non-Indicted 5, the amount of tax evasion is less than five million won per annum (the subsequent facts of evasion from each investigation are less than five million won per annum, and the indictment was instituted without legitimate accusation of the person entitled to file a complaint

In light of the records, the court below, upon examining the records, adopted the statement of the witness in the court of the original trial by Nonindicted 11 and the statement of the appraiser in Nonindicted 11, and rejected each statement in the court of the original trial by Nonindicted 13 and 14 of the witness against this, did not show that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence in finding the facts identical to the time of the original trial.

The defense counsel stated that the defendant did not explicitly invite other accomplices with regard to the act of tax evasion in the instant case and did not actively participate in the act of tax evasion in specific and active manner (sharing of acts). However, the defense counsel did not deny the accomplice relationship in the statement of the judgment of the court below, in particular, in the trial records of the court below or the court below, the representative director of the non-indicted 8, the representative director of the non-indicted 5, the representative director of the non-indicted 7, the non-indicted 18, the representative director of the non-indicted 19, the non-indicted 20, the non-indicted 20, the non-indicted 21, the written statement of the prosecutor prepared, and the non-indicted 22, the non-indicted 12, the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 18, the defendant's representative director of the above company and the non-indicted 15 and the non-indicted 15 are participating in the above act of tax evasion as the representative director of each company and the non-indicted 15 and the non-indicted 1.

In addition, even if the record is taken in detail, it seems that the defendant was separated from the above conspiracy relationship prior to the commencement of the corporate tax evasion act against the non-indicted 12 corporation in 1973 or prior to the occurrence of the crime of tax evasion around March 7, 1974. Thus, the court below's decision is just and just, and the defendant's action recognized the defendant as a principal offender of the act of tax evasion and was taken accordingly, and it is clear in light of the purport of the above law that the crime under Article 9 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not a crime established or whose punishment is aggravated, it cannot be said that the court below's measure taken by the defendant under Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was erroneous in the interpretation

Therefore, the appeal by the public prosecutor and the defense counsel who asserts mistake of facts or violation of law is groundless.

The following are examined ex officio.

The judgment of the court below acknowledged that between December 1, 1972 and December 31, 1974, the defendant evaded corporate tax, corporate tax, corporate business tax, and goods tax, which the defendant is liable for tax payment, and corporate tax, corporate tax, and goods tax which are each liable for tax payment by the non-indicted 12 corporation, non-indicted 5 corporation, non-indicted 18 corporation, non-indicted 9 corporation, and non-indicted 10 corporation, in collusion with the representative director and other officers and employees of each related company, and they are all the crimes falling under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9 (1) 1 and 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the taxes that the defendant evaded in collusion are different from five companies, and each of the above five companies is established separately for each of the above five companies (the aforementioned persons liable for tax payment and the defendant processed them), and the corporate tax and the corporate tax are established for each business year.

In addition, since the goods tax should be paid each month by the end of the following month, the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established in each payment period. However, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits a crime as provided in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be subject to aggravated punishment when the evaded tax amount is more than 10 million won per year or not less than 5 million won per year. Thus, Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a crime as provided in Article 8(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be deemed as a crime of Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes if

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which was applied as a single crime all the tax evasion in this case, is erroneous in the application of the law.

In addition, the court below held that the statute of limitations has expired two years after the expiration of the statute of limitations under Article 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which was enforced before November 21, 1975, since there was an invitation to evade taxes imposed on non-indicted 23, etc. and non-indicted 18 among the charges of this case, and the amount equivalent to KRW 8,30,400 among the storage batteries of September 1973, as the goods tax amounting to KRW 2,49,120 has not been paid until October 31 of the same year, which is the due date for payment, since the crime of evading the goods tax has been committed after the lapse of the period of prescription under Article 17 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which was enforced before the date of the prosecution of this case, since Article 17 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was the total amount of KRW 11,853,810,000,0000 per annum of the above statute of limitations from 197.

Since the lower court’s error in the above application of the law does not mean that it affects the judgment, the lower court cannot avoid reversal in this respect.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case is affirmed as guilty of the facts charged of the crime of adultery against the defendant, and the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the case of the request for divorce which was brought by Nonindicted 24, the complainant of the crime of tax evasion, was withdrawn on May 22, 1976, which was after the sentence of the judgment of the court below, and thus, the complaint of this case becomes retroactively null and void at the time of the complaint. Therefore, the judgment dismissing the public prosecution was rendered on the ground that the above facts of the indictment constitute the case which shall be prosecuted only upon the complaint, and it is clearly stated that the judgment of the court below was finalized along with the expiration of the period of the appeal, and it became clear that this part of the judgment dismissing the public prosecution became final and conclusive with the lapse of the period of the appeal, and thus, the party member was punished as only the facts of tax evasion, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed as it is.

Therefore, the party members omitted the decision on the remaining grounds for appeal, and pursuant to Article 364, Article 364, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the decision is again

The Defendant is the head of the board of directors of Nonindicted Co. 12, Nonindicted Co. 5, and Nonindicted Co. 18, as the head of the board of directors of Nonindicted Co. 15, who was the major shareholder, died on December 27, 1970, and Nonindicted Co. 15, who was involved in the management of the above company as the major shareholder and the director of the above company from January 1971

1. During the period from January 1, 1973 to June 31, 197, the company's office, etc. located in the company's company's company's (number omitted) shall not go through the sales office of non-indicted 10 corporation directly and without going through the sales office of non-indicted 10 corporation, ordered the company's local contact offices of non-indicted 10 corporation by sending and collecting products, and then not entered the facts in the tax relations book, as well as not entering the order, the notice of dispatch, compiling list and other evidential documents in attached Form 1, the amount of income from the above sales amount can not be recognized as corporate tax, but the company's tax base for the above sales amount shall be recognized as being evaded for 313,136,106 won (the cost calculation for the above omitted sales amount may not be recognized as corporate tax, but the company's tax base for the above sales amount shall be approved as corporate tax amount for 14,194,2597).

2. Co-defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the court below and Co-defendant 5 of the court below conspired to evade national taxes imposed on the above company, and from December 1, 1973 to November 31, 1974, the above company offices, etc. located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Pungdong (number omitted) sell the above company's products in an abnormal transaction method such as omitting a return on tax base and writing in the tax calculation table 2 of the above company's products. The above facts are not entered in the tax-related books, and the documents such as the pre-delivery list are incinerated, and when the tax base is reported by unlawful means such as omitting a return on tax base and the entry in the tax calculation table 2 of the above company's tax base, such as omitting the tax base by item of the above company and making the payment deadline of each of the above tax items after the government's decision as it is, the above company's corporate tax amount,42,407,302 won, corporate tax amount, corporate tax amount of 2509,50

3. An invitation to evade national taxes imposed on Nonindicted Co. 23, 19, etc. and Nonindicted Co. 18 is an omission in product sales, such as omission in filing a return and omission in processing expenses, and omission in product sales at the above Nonindicted Co. 18’s office, etc. from January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974 as indicated in the attached Table 3 of the tax base return and calculation of the amount of tax, and such unlawful methods as omission in product sales, omission in filing a return on the above company, omission in tax base and calculation of the amount of tax, 3 entry in the attached Table of tax base and calculation of the amount of tax, and omission in tax base and omission in tax base, and omission in tax base or omission, or omission in tax base by the above companies’ respective taxable periods, 1,579,640, 1,670, 1967, 198, 360, 197, 1967, 196, 186.36

1. Each statement that conforms to the relevant part of the judgment of each representative director of the court below and each of the non-indicted 12 corporation, non-indicted 10 corporation, non-indicted 5 corporation, non-indicted 9 corporation, and non-indicted 18 corporation in the trial court prior to the remand of the case.

1. A statement that conforms to the reasoning in each of the statements made by Nonindicted 13, 14, 30, 31, 25, 29, 26, 34, 33, 32, 32, 4, 22, 27, Nonindicted 38, 28, 20, 35, 36, 37, 21, and 11 of the witness at the court of the original instance

1. The prosecutor's statements as to the prosecutor's defendants and non-indicted 8, 7, 19, and 29 as to each protocol of interrogation of the suspect's suspect

1. Each written statement made by the prosecutor against Non-Indicted 25, 8, 32, 34, 14, 22, 2, 31, 30, 38, which conforms to the facts in the judgment;

1. In each statement written by Non-Indicted 13, 32, 8, 29, 25, 23, 26, 3, 4, 2, 19, 7, 27, and 22, the records that correspond to the part of the judgment in question

1. Each written appraisal of Nonindicted 11 prepared by the lower court appraiser

1. Each description of a copy of the investigation documents on suspicion of tax offense (Evidence 15 through 18, subparagraphs 25, and 25) of the seized Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 18, and Nonindicted 12, respectively.

1. Each description in one sheet, one sheet of reference file, and one copy of the written application for coal (Evidence No. 11 through No. 13) that has been seized;

Article 8(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 9(1)1 and 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act before the amendment by Act No. 2714 of Dec. 24, 1974, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Determination of Imprisonment for a limited term)

Article 8 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (limited to Imprisonment)

Articles 53, 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Article 62 of the Criminal Act

Article 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act

(1) Of the facts charged, the defendant's attempt to evade all the national taxes imposed on non-indicted 5 corporation 1, 2, 3, and 4. From 1 December 1, 1972 to 30, 1971, the above company located in Seongdong-gu (number omitted) shall sell these products using abnormal transaction methods, and then retire all the necessary documents, such as tax evasion of 1, 3, 98, 9.3, 1,000 won and 9.7,00 won and 1,000 won and 4.7,000 won and 4.7,000 won and 1,000 won and 4.7,000 won and 9,000 won and 1,000 won and 1,000 won and 4,00 won and 1,000 won and 1,000 won and 3,00 won and 1,000 won and 3,000 won and 1,00 won and 1,038.

Thus, since the procedure of indictment against this part of the facts charged falls under a case where it is invalid in violation of the provisions of law, the dismissal of prosecution shall be dismissed by judgment pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

[Attachment]

Judges Jeon Man-Ma (Presiding Judge)