Delivery, etc. of Invoice)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

2. A. B

2.3

Attorney E, F, G, H

Attorney I (National Assembly for the defendant B)

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above imprisonment years shall be suspended for Defendant A, and for Defendant B, for two years.

When Defendant A and B fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 2,500,000 into one day.

Defendant C’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of a list of total tax accounts by sales offices for the second final tax return on January 25, 2015 to Defendant C on January 25, 2015.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant C is publicly announced.

[Status of Defendant]

Defendant A is a corporation established for the main purpose of food wholesale and retail business, etc., and Defendant B is a person who performs related affairs, such as issuance of a false tax invoice, as the former director of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J building C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

【Criminal Facts】

1. Joint offenses committed by Defendant A and B in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice);

Defendant A did not intend to increase the sales of C by means of issuance, receipt, etc. of false tax invoices in order to obtain loans in the name of C, and notified Defendant B through K, an employee of Defendant B, of the supply price of false tax invoices, transaction partners, etc., and Defendant A conspired to issue or issue false tax invoices, etc. on the basis of the supply price of false tax invoices delivered by the above K, transaction partners, etc.

According to the above public offering, the Defendants issued or received false tax invoices and invoices equivalent to 13,515,861,63 won in total of the supply values or sales purchases entered in the list of the total tax invoices by customer or by customer on the tax invoice and invoice as follows for profit-making purposes, and submitted to the Government a list of the total tax invoices by customer and by customer or by customer, a list of the total tax invoices by customer and by customer, and a list of the total tax invoices by customer or by customer.

(a) The issuance of a false tax invoice and the receiptC have not been supplied with goods or services by any business partner, including LA;

Nevertheless, according to the above public offering, Defendant A issued or received a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 2,982,834,781 in total 63 times from around October 2015, including the fact that Defendant A received a false tax invoice as to the supply price of goods or services equivalent to KRW 20,389,820 from Plaintiff L, which was ordered by Defendant B around October 2014.

(b) there is no supply of goods or services by a false invoice issuance and receptionC from a customer, including M&A Co., Ltd.

Nevertheless, according to the above public offering, Defendant A issued or received a false statement equivalent to KRW 4,717,632,675, in total 44 times, from that time, including the receipt of a false statement of account, as if he/she had received goods or services equivalent to KRW 100,00,000 from M of Incorporated Incorporated Co., Ltd., Ltd., which had been ordered by Defendant B around October 2014, including the receipt of a false statement of account, from January 2015.

(c) There is no fact that the submissionC of the aggregate tax invoices by customer and the aggregate tax invoices by customer has supplied goods or services to customers, including N Co., Ltd.;

Nevertheless, according to the above public offering, Defendant A submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer or by seller by customer, which is recorded falsely as if he/she supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 122,909,09,090 from the time when he/she received instructions from Defendant B, to January 25, 2015, including the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer by customer, which entered falsely as if he/she supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 122,90,09,09,09 to N corporation, and submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer or by seller by customer, including the submission of the list of total tax invoices by customer by customer.

(d) There was no supply of goods or services to customers, such as a fisheries company, etc. by submitting a sum table of invoices by customer and a sum table of invoices by customer.

Nevertheless, according to the above public offering, Defendant A submitted a sum table or a sum table by customer or by individual supplier of each sales account statement, including the supply price of KRW 1,100,000,000,000 to the Incorporated Fisheries Company, which was notified by Defendant B, on October 25, 2014, as well as the supply price of goods or services equivalent to KRW 400,000,000, the supply price of KRW 320,000,00 to Q of Incorporated Incorporated Company, and the supply price of KRW 320,00,00,00 to Q of Incorporated Company, from January 25, 2015, the sum table of the supply price of KRW 5,118,382,075, including the sum table of the supply price of goods or services supplied or provided as false.

2. Defendant C

As above, the Defendant issued or issued false tax invoices and invoices equivalent to KRW 13,515,861,63 in total of the supply values or purchase amounts entered in the tax invoices and invoices by customer, or the aggregate of the purchase amounts entered in the tax invoices by customer, or the total tax invoices by customer, and submitted to the Government the aggregate invoices by customer and by customer, the aggregate invoices by customer and by customer, and the aggregate invoices by customer and by customer.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A and B's partial statement

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police against K;

1. Each police statement to K;

1. Each accusation, data investigation report, each return on investigation report, each list of value-added taxes, each tax invoice, each list of tax invoices, each tax invoice, each statement of transaction details, each statement of account, each investigator and each trader, inquiry of transaction details, questions and answers, each of the certified transcript of corporate register, each business registration certificate, each e-mail copy, each e-mail

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A and B: Article 8-2(1)1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 10(3)1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the receipt and issuance of false tax invoices and false statements; the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer and by customer; and the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer and customer; both imprisonment and fine);

(b) Defendant C: The main sentence of Article 18 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt and issuance of false tax invoices), the main sentence of Article 18, Article 10 (3) 2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt and issuance of false invoices), the main sentence of Article 18 and Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer and customer), the main sentence of Article 18 and Article 10 (3) 4 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer and customer)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant C: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply, but the fines prescribed in the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be aggregated after being separately prescribed)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A and B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A and B: Articles 70(1) and (2) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A and B: Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (with respect to imprisonment, consideration of favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing):

[Attachment 2] According to each investigation report (No. 150-1, 151-1), each judgment (Evidence 2, 150-2, 151-2), and each case’s detailed statement (Evidence 2, 150-3, 151-3), Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months at the Seoul Northern District Court on January 22, 2015 and two years of suspension of execution on January 30, 2015, and one of the above crimes cannot be deemed to be concurrent crimes against Defendant B, which became final and conclusive on August 13, 2015. This case’s concurrent crimes against Defendant B, which became final and conclusive on August 13, 2014. However, according to the judgment of the Seoul Northern District Court on August 13, 2014, which became final and conclusive on August 21, 2015, which became final and conclusive on August 21, 2015.

Judgment on the defense counsel's assertion by Defendant A and C

1. Summary of the assertion

In cases where a false tax invoice or invoice (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice, etc.") is issued or issued and submitted to the Government with respect to the same transaction, a false list of total tax invoices by seller or by seller (hereinafter referred to as "lists of total tax invoices by seller") is prepared and submitted, the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by electronic act and the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by latter act constitutes a single crime of absorption among the statutory concurrence. In other words, Article 10 (3) 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not stipulate that the act of receiving false tax invoices, etc. concerning the same transaction and the act of submitting false list of total tax invoices shall be punished concurrently. ② The above provisions are to maintain sound order in tax invoices and distribution order by establishing order in tax invoices. ③ Since the above provisions do not increase legal interests by submitting a list of total tax invoices again after issuance of false tax invoices, it violates the principle of prohibition of double evaluation, and ④ the act of imposing additional tax in violation of Article 9 (2) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc.

2. Relevant legal principles

In principle, only one crime is established for each document when receiving a tax invoice, etc., or when submitting a list of total tax invoices, etc., without supplying goods or services. However, Article 8-2(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act combines the act of Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the act of increasing the total amount of supply value, etc., and provides a statutory punishment therefor. As such, where the sum of the supply value, etc. entered in the list of total tax invoices, invoices, and the list of total tax invoices by seller is above the amount prescribed in Article 8-2(1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, only the single crime of violation of Article 8-2(1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is established. Accordingly, when calculating the "total sum of supply values, etc." prescribed in Article 8-2(1)1 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and the list of total supply values by seller as prescribed in Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3599).

3. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, even if the same transaction pertains to the same transaction, it shall be deemed that one crime is established in each document when committing the acts provided for in each subparagraph of Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. In applying the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, it is reasonable to calculate the sum of supply values, including the supply values of false tax invoices, etc. and the supply values or sales purchases on the false list of total tax invoices, etc., and also applies to the receipt of false tax invoices, etc. for the same transaction and the submission of false list of total tax invoices. Accordingly, the prior

① Although Articles 10(3)1 and 10(3)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishs cases where the number of tax invoices, etc. is made between the actors without real transactions, Articles 3 and 4 shall be punished where an offender makes a false list of total tax invoices and submits them to the Government. Articles 10(3)1, 2, and 3 and 4 shall not only vary in applicable provisions of law, date, time, place, counterpart, and means of action, but also may be separately established. As such, each act shall be deemed to have a relation of substantive concurrent crimes, not in the relationship of absorption of legal light agreements, in principle, as a matter of principle.

② Only a false tax invoice, etc. may be received for a transaction, or a false aggregate table may be submitted to the Government, on the contrary, by entering a false tax invoice, etc. for a transaction. A false aggregate table may be deemed to be more illegal even if the sum of illegal sizes is submitted to the Government by entering a false aggregate table. It is not always unreasonable to punish the sum of illegal sizes. The Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes does not distinguish between the same transaction and all supply values, etc. entered in the aggregate table handled by the relevant actor, but only provides for aggravated punishment according to whether the sum of supply values, etc. entered in the

③ If a public prosecution is instituted against the same transaction, such as a false tax invoice, and the submission of a false list of total tax invoices, according to Article 8-2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, not the violation of Article 10(3) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, there is a problem that not only leads to an unfair outcome that should be acquitted in the case of other separate acts but also the standard that can be determined not guilty in the case of any other separate acts.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of the applicable sentences;

(a) Imprisonment: Not less than one year and six months, but not more than fifteen years;

2. Fines: Amount of a fine: From two to five times the amount of a fine calculated by applying 10% of the tax rate of value-added tax to 13,515,861, 166 won, but not exceeding three,378,965,415 won (the amount of a fine: 13,515,861,63 won in total of the value-added tax);

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria (limited to imprisonment);

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 of the Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, such as the receipt of false tax invoices under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, etc. (at least five billion won, but less than 30 billion won)

【Special Convicted Persons】

○ Reduction element: Where no purpose of tax evasion exists or any result of tax evasion has not occurred;

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than one year and six months but not more than two years and six months (a mitigation area)

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years suspended execution and a fine of 1,360,000,000;

The crime of this case is an offense that interferes with the legitimate exercise of the State’s right to tax collection and undermines sound order in commercial transactions. The total value of supply, such as false tax invoices, is not less than that of Defendant A’s responsibility.

However, Defendant A did not commit the instant crime for the purpose of evading tax, but did not actually evade tax. Defendant A did not have any record of the crime other than a fine in violation of the Food Sanitation Act.

In addition, taking into account all the factors of sentencing, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, it is inappropriate to determine the punishment as ordered (in the event that Defendant B does not suspend the sentence of a fine as seen below, it cannot be deemed that the degree of his/her participation is less exceptionally than that of the suspension of sentence of a fine).

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of the applicable sentences;

(a) Imprisonment: At least one year and six months, but not exceeding fifteen years;

2. Fines: Amount of a fine: From two to five times the amount of a fine calculated by applying 10% of the tax rate of value-added tax to 13,515,861, 166 won, but not exceeding three,378,965,415 won (the amount of a fine: 13,515,861,63 won in total of the value-added tax);

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria (limited to imprisonment);

[Determination of Punishment] Type 2 (not less than five billion won, less than 30 billion won), such as the receipt of false tax invoices under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act

【Special Convicted Persons】

○ Reduction element: Where no purpose of tax evasion exists or any result of tax evasion has not occurred;

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than one year and six months but not more than two years and six months (a mitigation area)

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, two years of the stay of execution and a fine of 1,360,000,000 won;

The crime of this case is an offense that interferes with the legitimate exercise of the State’s right to tax collection and undermines sound order in commercial transactions. The total value of supply, such as false tax invoices, is not less than that of Defendant B’s liability.

However, Defendant B did not commit the instant crime for the purpose of evading taxes, but did not actually evade taxes.

In addition, taking into account the various factors, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., Defendant B shall determine the punishment as ordered (as seen above, Defendant B has a criminal record of suspension of qualification or more, it shall not be allowed to suspend the sentence of fine).

3. Defendant C

(a) Scope of punishment: Fines not exceeding 4,054,758,498 won (the scope of punishment: a fine not exceeding three times the amount calculated by applying 10% of the value-added tax rate to the total value of supply; 13,515,861,663 won);

(b) Determination of sentence: Fines of 50,000,000 won (i.e., receipt and delivery of each false tax invoice and account statement, submission of a false list of tax invoices and a false list of tax invoices, and fines of 400,000 won per X act 125 times in total);

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice) by Defendant A and B;

On January 25, 2015, Defendant A and B conspired to submit to the Government a total of 2,285,822,649 won of supply value on a total of two occasions, such as in the separate sheet of crime No. 5, on a commercial basis, in collusion with Defendant A and B, a total of tax invoices by customer in the second final return and by seller in 2014, stating false amount of supply value.

B. Defendant C.

Defendant C had an employee A submit to the Government a list of total tax invoices by customer and by seller at the second final tax return in 2014, which entered false matters as referred to in the above paragraph (a).

2. Determination

A. Relevant provisions

Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "any person who submits a false list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with goods or services, and submits it to the Government" shall be punished, and Article 8-2(1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act provides that "any person who commits a crime under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for profit-making purposes is punished by adding up the amount of supply entered in the list of total tax invoices, etc. to a specified amount

Meanwhile, Article 54(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "where an entrepreneur has issued or has been issued a tax invoice, a list of total tax invoices by customer and a list of total tax invoices by customer shall be submitted at the time of the pertinent preliminary return or final return, stating the registration number, name or title, transaction period, preparation date, total sum of supply values during the transaction period, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree," and "other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree" shall be submitted at the same time. However, Article 32(2), 3, and (5) provides that "where an entrepreneur issues an electronic tax invoice, the list of total tax invoices by customer shall be transmitted or transmitted by the deadline prescribed by the Presidential Decree to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the deadline prescribed by the Presidential Decree."

B. Specific determination

1) The list of the total tax invoices, which is deemed to have been submitted by false entry in this part of the facts charged, is indicated in C’s list of the total tax invoices by customer in the final tax return for February 2014 (the number of pages 42 of investigation records, hereinafter fraud records are omitted, and only the number of pages is indicated), and “the portion of the electronic tax invoices issued by customer” (see, e.g., the part of the list of the total tax invoices by customer in attached Form 6) transmitted by no later than the 11th day of the month following the end of the taxable period following the end of the taxable period (see, e.g., the part of the list of the total tax invoices by customer in attached Form 63 in the case of the 43 pages), and is deemed to have been charged with only the portion of the total tax invoices issued by N in the total amount of KRW 1,073,019,60 (56 pages), which was issued by L by means of a false electronic tax invoice issued by each electronic tax invoice in attached Form No.

2) In light of the circumstances as seen above, in the records of this case, as to the portion automatically generated in the form of a list of tax invoices as a result of Defendant A’s issuance of an electronic tax invoice issued or issued in a false manner by the National Tax Service, it is difficult to view that Defendant A submitted to the Government “an act of entering and submitting a list of tax invoices,” which is punished by the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or the Specific Crimes A Act, in the form of a list of tax invoices.

① “Submission of a list of total tax invoices” means the act of entering the registration numbers, names or titles, transaction periods, date of preparation, total sum of supply values for transaction periods, and total sum of tax amounts, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “matters, etc. by each transaction party”) of business entities and business entities, which are stipulated to be necessarily entered in the list of total tax invoices under Article 54(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, into the list of total tax invoices and submitting them to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. However, as seen in the above relevant provisions, where an electronic tax invoice is issued and a list of the issuance of electronic tax invoices is transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the obligation to submit the list of total tax invoices is exempted, and if the list of the issuance of electronic tax invoices is transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the act of submitting the list of total tax invoices to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by transaction parties is automatically entered in the list of total tax invoices, and separately, the act of submitting the said

② Moreover, if a business operator issues an electronic tax invoice in the Homebook (www.homet.go.kr) operated by the National Tax Service, the details of the issuance of the electronic tax invoice are automatically transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service immediately after the issuance of the electronic tax invoice, and there is no need for a separate procedure for transmitting the details of the issuance of the electronic tax invoice. As such, the business operator is not only “the submission of the list of the total tax invoices” but also “the transmission of the details of the issuance of the electronic tax invoice” (see, e.g., reply

③ Ultimately, an entrepreneur’s act of transmitting a list of electronic tax invoices to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service only when he/she issues an electronic tax invoice via a separate electronic tax invoice issuance site, which is not the home store, but the Plaintiff’s act of transmitting the list of electronic tax invoices to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. However, as seen below, the “list of the issuance of electronic tax invoices” and “list of the total tax invoices” differ from the grounds for the transmission (or submission) and the timing and method of transmission (or submission), and essential details, etc. Therefore, the act of transmitting the list of the electronic tax invoices cannot be evaluated as the

○ As seen in the aforementioned relevant provisions, the Value-Added Tax Act provides for the obligation to issue electronic tax invoices and the obligation to transmit the details of the issuance of electronic tax invoices to corporate entrepreneurs and certain individual entrepreneurs accordingly, and provides that other individual entrepreneurs may also issue electronic tax invoices and transmit the details of the issuance thereof (Article 32 subparag. 2, 3, and 5). However, the said obligation is not provided to all entrepreneurs who have issued or received electronic tax invoices (Article 32 subparag. 2, 3, and 5). On the other hand, the said obligation is imposed on all entrepreneurs who have issued or received tax invoices and the list of the total tax invoices by customer (Article 54(1)): Provided, That where an electronic tax invoice is issued and a list of the issuance thereof is transmitted, the said obligation is exempted (Article

Where a corporate entrepreneur, etc. issues an electronic tax invoice through a separate electronic tax invoice issuance website operated by an entrepreneur, an entrepreneur shall transmit a list of the issuance of the relevant electronic tax invoice to the National Tax Service by the 11th day of the month following the date of issuance (Article 32(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 68(6) of the Enforcement Decree thereof). In addition, in order to be exempted from the obligation to submit a list of the total tax invoices issued or issued, a list of the issuance of the electronic tax invoices should be transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the 11th day of the month following the end of the relevant taxable period (Article 54(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act). On the contrary, a list

(c)The list of the total tax invoices must contain the particulars by each customer (Article 54(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act), but the electronic statement of the issuance of the tax invoices must contain the matters to be stated in the tax invoice (Article 32(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 68(7) of the Enforcement Decree thereof).

④ In introducing an electronic tax invoice under the former Value-Added Tax Act as amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010, an entrepreneur issued an electronic tax invoice and transmitted a list of the issuance of an electronic tax invoice to the National Tax Service (proviso of Article 20 and Article 16(3) and (4) of the former Act). As such, the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, in addition to punishing “the act of submitting a false entry in the list of the tax invoices to the Government” as well as punishing “the act of transmitting a false entry in the list of the tax invoices to the Government” or “an act of not correcting a portion automatically generated in the list of the issuance of the electronic tax invoices by the transmission of the list of the tax invoices through the issuance of the tax invoices through the issuance of the tax invoices. Nevertheless, deeming “the act of transmitting the list of the issuance of the tax invoices” as “the act of submitting the list of the total tax invoices by the submission of the list of the total tax invoices” cannot be subject to criminal punishment against the principle of no punishment without law.

⑤ 국세청이 기획재정부에 "실물거래 없이 허위의 전자세금계산서를 발급받은 법인에 대하여 거짓 매입처별 세금계산서 합계표 제출을 이유로 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제3호에 따라 처벌할 수 있는지"에 관하여 질의하자, 기획재정부는 '조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제3호에 따라 처벌할 수 없음'이라는 회신을 하기도 하였다[기획재정부 조세법령운용과 -525(2016. 9. 29.)]. 기획재정부도 부가가치세법상 '전자세금계산서 발급명세 전송 행위'를 '세금계산서합계표 제출 행위'로 평가할 수 없다고 판단하였기 떄문인 것으로 보인다.

3) Meanwhile, Defendant A received a list of total tax invoices by seller at the National Tax Service homepage in 2014 (see, e.g., the investigation record 43 pages, and the list of total tax invoices by seller by seller by seller by seller by no later than 11th of the month following the end of the taxable period. The list already contains the details of the portion automatically generated by transmitting the details of electronic tax invoices in the column “issued by electronic tax invoices issued on the 11th of the month following the end of the taxable period,” but Defendant A submitted the list of total tax invoices to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by stating the false parts of the tax invoices issued by individual suppliers by no later than the 11th of the month following the end of the taxable period. In such a case, it is problematic whether the above part of the tax invoices was subject to punishment for the act of submitting the tax invoices in addition to punishing the above part of the above paragraph (1).

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the records of this case, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A was deemed to have submitted a false list of tax invoices on the part of the above paragraph (1) and cannot be punished as the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act.

① Since Article 54(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an entrepreneur shall enter necessarily the list of tax invoices under Article 54(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, it does not directly state the “statements, etc. by each customer, etc.,” it cannot be deemed that a false list of tax invoices is submitted for this part (i) the aforementioned section is a part automatically generated by transmitting the list of tax invoices issued, and it is not possible for an entrepreneur to directly enter or revise it, and there is no column for an entrepreneur to enter the “specification, etc. by

② Even if an entrepreneur was willing to submit a list of total tax invoices only on the part of the issuance or issuance of paper tax invoices, the above paragraph (1) is automatically created through the transmission of the list of total tax invoices issued to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and thus, insofar as an electronic tax invoice is not amended by the electronic tax invoice, it cannot be corrected or deleted (see response to an order to submit tax invoices), and it is impossible to submit a harbor other than the above paragraph, which has been automatically created, on the list of total tax invoices. In such cases, it is difficult to view that an entrepreneur is obligated to revise or delete a list of total tax invoices by modifying or deleting the existing tax invoices by issuing the amended list of total tax invoices.

③ If an entrepreneur issued or received only a false electronic tax invoice, it cannot be deemed as the act of submitting a list of total tax invoices, as seen earlier, and is not subject to punishment on the part of the above paragraph generated through the transmission of a list of total tax invoices issued. It is unreasonable to impose punishment on the part of the above paragraph (1) that is not originally punished solely on the ground that he/she issued or issued a false list of total tax invoices within the same taxable period and additionally prepared and submitted the list of total tax invoices to the list of total tax invoices.

3. Conclusion

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is found not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, inasmuch as the part on Defendant A and B is found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.), it is not separately acquitted in the order, and the part on the aggregate tax invoices by seller by seller by seller by the second final tax return No. 2014 (the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of the aggregate tax invoices No. 2 of the attached Table 5) against Defendant C is found guilty of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the submission of the aggregate tax invoices by seller by seller by final tax return No. 2014 in the second final tax return No. 2014 (the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by submitting the aggregate tax invoices No. 1 of the attached Table 5). The summary of this part of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges of the High Instance

Judges Kim Dong-dong

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.