'Yang Hyun-suk Major Shareholder' Hongdae Pub Owner Confirmed for Probation on Tax Evasion and Embezzlement Charges

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The representative of a pub and club company near Hongdae, whose largest shareholder is former YG Entertainment CEO and producer Yang Hyunsuk, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court to receive a suspended prison sentence for tax evasion involving several hundred million won.

On the 16th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Daeyeop) announced that it upheld the original ruling sentencing Mr. A, CEO of CDNA, who was indicted for violating the Tax Crime Punishment Act and other charges, to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 2-year suspension and a fine of 2 million won.

Previously, Mr. A was prosecuted for installing dance spaces and special lighting facilities in pubs near Hongdae and registering them as regular restaurants instead of entertainment pubs, thereby evading about 70 million won in individual consumption tax and education tax. He was also accused of hiding sales by entering cash admission fees as order cancellations or returns in the Point of Sale (POS) system, evading about 130 million won in taxes.

Meanwhile, as of April, former CEO Yang was the largest shareholder holding 70% of the shares in the company where Mr. A is the CEO. Yang's younger brother also held 30% of the shares.

Mr. A's side argued in court that "when former CEO Yang and celebrity acquaintances visited and incurred credit without payment, the POS system processed these as order cancellations and returns, and taxes were reported later."

The first trial found some of Mr. A's charges to be guilty and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 2-year suspension and a fine of 2 million won. At that time, the court pointed out, "Although the POS system could input 'credit' items, it was possible to account for credit sales for unpaid alcohol and food charges," and "Nevertheless, the store manager was instructed to process 'order cancellations'."

The second trial and the Supreme Court agreed with this judgment. The Supreme Court stated, "The original court did not err in its interpretation of the law regarding 'fraud or other dishonest acts' and intent as stipulated in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Tax Crime Punishment Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.