특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)
1. All appeals filed by Defendant C and Prosecutor are dismissed.
2. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of the legal principles as to whether the F and the public offering were made, or Defendant C was aware of the fact that the F made a normal transaction and issued an electronic tax invoice, and it was impossible to find out what the F actually did.
Therefore, there was no conspiracy with F with regard to the issuance of false tax invoices, and there was an intentional intent on the issuance of false tax invoices.
shall not be deemed to exist.
2) The fee that Defendant C received by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to “for-profit purposes” or “for-profit purposes,” is received from a person who introduced a nominal lender, such as A, and received sales money from a nominal lender and delivered it to F. As such, it does not take profits by issuing a false tax invoice itself.
Therefore, since Defendant C does not have the purpose of profit-making, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices) cannot be established against the above Defendant.
3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant C (one year of imprisonment and fine of KRW 455,00,000) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles or Defendant B’s introduction of the nominal lender upon Defendant C’s request, but it was not entirely anticipated that F would not pay income tax on the sales revenue or value added tax.
Therefore, Article 11 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act cannot be applied to Defendant B, since there was no purpose for “the avoidance of taxes or the evasion of compulsory execution”.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The prosecutor (Defendant C part and the improper sentencing) explicitly withdrawn the grounds for appeal by misunderstanding the legal principles on the first trial date.
The sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant C is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The part concerning Defendant C
A. Defendant C’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.