현행 조세범 처벌제도의 개선방안

Abstract

The tax evader punishment law was revised in 2010 to effectively cope with tax crimes, but tax crimes have been steadily increasing, and the scale has been increasing. The neglect of tax crimes leads to defects in government treasury income, and in particular, the social culture that faithful taxpayers lose money and those who evacuate in a cunning way live well is harming the sound tax consciousness. Accordingly, tax authorities are strengthening tax investigations, and tax crime investigations are increasing. Nevertheless, it is difficult to detect the acts of tax evader under the careful assistance of expert groups in a rapidly changing economic environment such as the deepening of the globalization of the economy, the expansion of the digital economy, and the advancement of financial techniques. In addition, criticism has been raised that even if the tax authorities have caught and accused of such acts, the punishment for their actions is weak. In this study, I would like to take a look at the question that the current tax evader punishment system is not functioning properly. In particular, although the average sentence of tax evader continues to increase, the reprieve of execution accounts for about 50%. The reason for the large number of reprieve is thought to be because the sentence of punishment for tax crimes suggests a sentence standard to reduce the sentence when paying a tax. Therefore, this may be one of the reasons that the delinquents of high-payment and recidivism continue to increase. Therefore, it is time to change the thinking about tax crimes. Since tax bonds infringe on private property from the state power, it should be deviated from the viewpoint that the sentence should be reduced than general crimes. It can be said to be more serious because the act of tax evader is more deliberate than ordinary fraud. Therefore, at the very least, the sentence of the tax evader should be the same as that of the fraudster. Furthermore, in the case of malicious and recidivism, it is necessary to sentence the prisoner to a sentence of imprisonment rather than a sentence of probation. In addition, offshore tax evader is punished in the same way as domestic tax evader. Therefore, as for the offshore tax evasion, the sentence should be strengthened more than the domestic tax evader as it is applied differently during the imposition period. On the other hand, if the punishment of business owners, such as business executives, is punished by reprieve, it is expected that the preventive effect will be great for business owners if the punishment is strengthened by adding employment restrictions. In addition, since the tax evader crime is similar to fraud crime and occurs in an economic transaction relationship, it may be possible to consider a method of switching to the Specified Economic Crime Weighted Punishment Act rather than the Specific Crime Weighted Punishment Act.