In light of the legal principles, the Defendant merely issued a false tax invoice to the effect that the Defendant would not pay the attempted tax invoice if he/she refuses to issue the tax invoice from the customer. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a "for profit-making purpose".

When calculating the “total amount of supply value, etc.,” which is the standard for aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the sum of the supply value on the tax invoice and the supply value on the tax invoice by buyer is not permissible as double punishment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the facts charged.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 490 million won, suspension of execution of imprisonment, etc.) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

“Profit-making purpose” under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to the purpose of obtaining wide economic benefits with respect to the assertion regarding the purpose of profit-making. As such, the purpose of obtaining economic benefits by tax evasion through transaction of taxation data is also to acquire economic benefits without supplying or being supplied with goods or services, and to obtain economic benefits by issuing a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied or being supplied.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5758, Sept. 24, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is found to have issued or submitted a false tax invoice or a false tax invoice by buyer at the request of the transaction partner with a view to receiving the attempted amount from the transaction partner or maintaining the transaction relationship with the transaction partner. The above purpose is closely related to the Defendant’s economic interest.