The crime under Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishing an act of submitting a list of total tax invoices to the Government by false entry, and the crime under Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the crime under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishing an act of evading taxes, such as value added taxes, or receiving a deduction from tax refund by fraudulent or other unlawful acts are established separately for the crime under Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 3 (1) of the same Act.

B. In order for a crime under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to be established, there is a false filing of a tax standard and tax amount in addition to submitting a list of total tax invoices by manipulating the list of total tax invoices, and there is an act of evading tax or receiving tax refund deduction based on the false filing of a false report. Thus, the crime of evading or unlawfully receiving value added taxes and submitting a list of total tax invoices to the Government cannot be deemed as one legal act.

This legal doctrine also applies to the crimes under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the crimes under Article 8(1) of the same Act, which are the provisions for the aggravated punishment of each of the above crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9242, Dec. 8, 2011). Moreover, Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes violates the principle of clarity of the legal principle of crime, the principle of prohibition of double punishment, or Article 8(2) and Article 8-2(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are unconstitutional because they violate the principle of equality, the principle of excessive prohibition, and the principle of discretionary power of judges and excessively restrict the sentencing of judges.