violation of law (Fraud) and punishment of a tax offense

Violation of law

Permanent domicile: ○ ○○○○ Dong-dong, Gyeongnam-gun

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant is a person who actually operates ○○○○○ High School's ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as ○○○○○○○ High School's cirical distribution) and concludes a contract for meal services with schools at each level, and ordinarily uses not less than 65% of the total meal cost paid by the Defendant for the school meal services at each level. On the other hand, if the Defendant makes a report on the food cost actually paid to the school within the extent that he can obtain sufficient profits, it is impossible to ordinarily use the standard of food cost set by the Provincial Office of Education and to externally recognize that the amount of money would be lower than the actual amount of money disbursed at the school, even if the Defendant considers the amount of money disbursed to the school is not easy to confirm the actual amount of money disbursed at the school, and such amount would be the same as providing meals to the above 00-day high school's cirical distribution. Even if the money disbursed by the Defendant is no more than the actual amount of money disbursed at each school's 0% of the money disbursed.

(a) Basic facts;

Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s legal statement, ○○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666332222222000002) and ○2222200003).

(2) 피고인 회사는 1999년경부터 ○○고등학교 등 7개 학교와 공개경쟁입찰 또는 재계약을 통하여 위탁급식공급계약을 체결하고, 각 학교 학생들에게 급식을 제공하여 왔다{○○고등학교(이하 각 학교는 ¡~중¡, ¡~고¡로 약칭한다)는 2002. 9. 1.부터 2005. 8. 31.까지, ○○여고는 1999. 3. 1.부터 2005. 2. 28.까지, 마산○○고는 1999. 3. 1.부터 2006. 2. 28.까지, ○○고는 2000. 3. 1.부터 2007. 2. 28.까지, ○○고는 1999. 11. 1.부터 2005. 10. 31.까지, ○○중·고는 2002. 9. 1.부터 2005. 8. 31.까지, 창원○○고는 1999. 10. 1.부터 2005. 8. 31.까지 ○○캐터링 명의로 계약을 체결하였고, ○○여고의 경우는 2005. 3. 1. 다시 공개경쟁입찰을 통해 ○○유통 명의로 계약기간을 2007. 2. 28.까지로 하는 계약을 체결하였다}. (3) 피고인 회사와 각 학교는 위 각 위탁급식공급계약을 체결함에 있어, 경상남도 교육청의 ¡학교급식실시 기본뱡향¡에 따라 식재료비의 구성은 전체급식비의 65%를 넘도록 하기로 명시적 또는 묵시적으로나마 약정하였고(이하 이러한 약정내용을 ¡65% 기준¡이라고 약칭한다), 이는 각 위탁급식공급계약의 전제조건이기도 하였다.

(4) The Defendant Company was supplied with food materials from Pyeongtaek ○○○ upper association, ○○ Livestock, ○○ Livestock, ○○ Food, ○○○○○ Food, ○○○ Food, ○ Kimchi, ○○ Food, ○○ Food, ○○○ Industries, ○○ Agriculture Association, ○○ Livestock Association, ○○ Livestock Association, ○○○○ System, etc. Based on the materials, the Defendant Company was also supplied with the food materials to each school.

(5) The defendant company supplied meals to each school on a monthly basis and received the price, and paid food ingredients expenses to each supplier. The process is outlined as follows.

(1) After formulating and reviewing a group of food units per month by a defendant company, the defendant company shall prepare a monthly purchase plan (referring to a general food expenditure plan sheet, etc. of the facts of prosecution) and apply for approval to the head of each school.

(2) If the head of a school approves of the school, the defendant company shall place an order and purchase for food materials needed at that time by each supplier, according to the food group.

(3) A supplier shall issue a detailed statement of goods and a statement of account (unit price fixed) to supply them to each school, and the school and the related persons shall examine the food materials supplied to them and provide them with meals at the meal facilities in each school.

(4) Persons related to meal places shall report the results of daily meal services, including details of daily purchase of food materials, to the principal.

(5) A defendant company shall claim meal costs at a school, along with a written confirmation on the purchase of food materials per month (referring to a written confirmation on the facts of prosecution, referring to a written confirmation of puous food expenditure table) in the last day of the following month.

(6) A supplier shall settle the total amount of food materials supplied to each school for the last month and claim the price therefor from the defendant company.

(7) When the defendant company approves meal expenses for the last month in each school, the defendant company shall pay it according to the amount requested by each delivery company.

(6) In settling accounts with each supplier every month, the Defendant Company received a request and a tax invoice based on retail price from the supplier, even though most of them were engaged in large-scale transactions based on wholesale price, and immediately after the retail’s direct storage of the passbook in the name of a certain supplier, the Defendant Company withdrawn the difference with the actual wholesaler as a bounty, after remitting the price in the name of the retailer.

(7) However, in withdrawing each of the above amounts, the Defendant Company also withdrawn advance payments or loans arising from individual transactions with each of the delivery companies, and the ratio of the withdrawn amount is set at 15-40% between the total remittance amount and 15-40%, depending on the different size and amount by each of the delivery companies.

(8) The Defendant Company received a total of KRW 6,506,650,000 from 7 schools from October 1, 2003 to March 2005 due to the provision of meals to each school. The Defendant Company has also supplied the food for the company and the city in addition to the school meal service. From January 1, 2003 to January 31, 2005, the sales of the city and the company from January 1, 2003 to January 31, 2005 are 2,358,221,970 won in total sales of the same period of 12,058,521,240 won in total.

B. Determination of facts charged

(1) In light of the transparency enhancement of school meal services and the importance of providing high-quality meal services to juveniles, the agreement on the p. 65% standard p.m. between schools and entrusted meal service suppliers is significant, and the above p.m. standard p. 65% p.m. is appropriate, regardless of whether the above standard p.m. standard p. 65% p.m. is appropriate for appropriately reflecting the actual status of meal service suppliers, it is reasonable to view that such standard has to be maintained if it was presented

However, as seen in the above facts, the defendant, while operating a large-scale meal service provider, settled the price of food materials with a wholesale price based on a wholesale price among the actual suppliers, issued a tax invoice, etc. on the basis of the retail price and remitted the amount corresponding thereto, and then withdrawn the difference with the actual wholesalers in the form of incentives. In other words, it is recognized that the tax invoice issued by the part of the supplier was prepared on the basis of retail price, not the actual wholesale transaction, while settling every month transactions.

그러나 역시 위 인정사실 및 앞서 설시한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 식재료비는 그 특성상 거래규모와 횟수, 시기, 지역, 품목, 유통방법에 따라 단가조절의 폭이 매우 넓어 가격의 유○○이 큰 품목이고{피고인 제출의 참고자료(소매가격정보)를 보면, 2004. 3. 15.경 유통업체별 소매가 기준으로 쌀 1㎏의 경우 2,250원에서 2,650원, 팥은 1㎏에 6,700원에서 12,000원, 시금치는 1㎏에 2,500원에서 4,940원, 사과는 10개에 15,000원에서 20,000원까지로 그 폭이 매우 넓음을 알 수 있다}, 업체에 따른 구매방법 및 구매력 또한 가격에 영향을 미치며, 이는 거래당사자라면 누구라도 쉽게 예상할 수 있는 점, ② 그런데 이렇게 유○○이 큰 식재료비에 대해 위 ¡65% 기준¡은 그 중 어떠한 가격을 기준으로 하는 것인지에 대해서는 아무런 구체적 기준을 제시한 바 없고, 다만 각 계약서상 ¡이를 증명하기 위하여 급식공급업자는 신뢰할 수 있는 기관에서 인정한 원가계산서를 제출하여야 한다.¡는 취지의 문구가 들어가 있는바, 이는 각 학교가 검증과정을 거칠 수 있는 객관적인 증빙자료가 첨부되고 그 단가가 상당한 것으로 인정된다면, 실제 거래된 원가와 다소간 차이가 있더라도 일응 위 기준을 충족하는 것으로 보겠다는 의사로 해석될 여지가 있는 점, ③ 실제로 식재료의 원가검증과정에 대하여, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 회사와 각 학교 사이의 급식공급과정을 보면, 피고인 회사는 각 학교에 매달 일응의 단가가 적힌 구매계획서를 제출하였고, 각 납품업체는 각 학교에 그때그때 필요한 식재료를 납품하면서 단가가 적힌 거래명세표 및 계산서를 제출하였으며, 피고인 회사는 급식마감 후 위 거래명세표 등을 종합한 한달분의 구매확인서를 제출하여 각 단계마다 학교측의 검수를 받았는데, 이러한 검증과정에서 각 학교가 피고인 회사에게 다른 증빙자료를 요구하거나 피고인이 제출한 자료를 문제삼은 적은 없었고, 또한 피고인 회사 급식의 양과 질의 측면에 대하여도 전혀 이의를 제기한 적도 없었던 점, ④ 피고인 회사가 각 납품업체로부터 식재료를 공급받는 방법은 각 학교별로 그때그때 필요한 양을 조절하여 개별적으로 공급받는 것이고, 다만 그 금액의 결제는 급식공급이 모두 이루어지고 난 다음달에(각 학교로부터의 급식비 결제도 완료된 후) 각 학교에 공급한 식재료의 총액을 계산하여 한꺼번에 이루어져 왔음을 알 수 있는데, 그러한 거래구조의 특성상 피고인 회사와 각 납품업체와의 최종적인 단가조정은 매월 결제시점에서야 구체적으로 조정이 가능하다고 볼 수 있는 점, ⑤ 피고인 회사는 대규모 거래를 통해 대부분의 원가절감을 이루고 있는 업체인데, 만약 한 학교와만 거래를 했다면 있을 수 없는 원가절감 부분을 다른 학교분과 기업체분, 도시락분을 모두 합하여 달성할 수 있었다면, 그로 인한 최종적인 절감부분을 한달 거래가 종결된 이후에까지 각 학교에 보고하지 않았다고 하여 허위의 가격을 보고한 것이라고는 속단하기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 매달 거래를 정산하면서 일부 납품업체로부터 실제 거래된 도매가가 아닌 소매가를 기준으로 작성된 세금계산서를 발급받고, 그 차액을 장려금 명목으로 반환받아 피고인 회사의 이익으로 취득하였다거나, 피고인 회사가 납품업체의 학교 납품시 제출한 거래명세표 및 계산서에 근거하여 구매확인서(식품비지출집계표)를 작성하여 학교에 급식비를 청구하였다는 등의 사정만으로 각 학교가 기망당하여 피고인 회사에 급식비를 지급하였다고 보기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. (2) 또한 위 65% 기준의 중요성에 비추어, 실제로 급식비 대비 65%가 넘는 식재료비가 지출되었다고 한다면 식재료비에 다소 부풀려진 금액이 있다는 사정만으로 사기죄를 구성한다고 단정하기 어려운 이 사안에 있어서는(식재료비의 부풀려진 정도에 따라 각 학교측에서는 급식비 지급여부와 지급액을 결정할 개연성이 있으므로, 식재료비가 다소 부풀려졌다는 사정만으로 바로 사기죄가 성립된다고 보기 어렵다), 각 학교별로 ¡65% 기준¡을 기망할 정도로 식재료비가 부풀려졌다는 점 또한 명확히 밝혀져야 할 것이다.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant Company received a refund of the difference (based on retail 15-40%) with incentives after settling all monthly transactions with some suppliers. However, according to the above facts and the evidence stated above, the false tax invoice as referred to in item (b) is only provided by the Defendant Company on the basis of the entire transactions with the Defendant Company every month, and it is not written in each of the above schools. The detailed statement of the transaction submitted by each of the suppliers was submitted every time of delivery. The purchase plan (food expenditure table) and written confirmation of the purchase (food expenditure table) are submitted by each of the Defendant Company to each of the schools, and the quantity and price of the food material for each of the above schools are not uniform, and the quantity of the food material for each of the above schools can not be found to be less than six percent of the total amount of the food material for each of the above facts charged, since each of the above facts can be found to be less than six percent of the total amount of the food material for each of the above schools.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Public prosecution in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant is a person who actually runs ○ Capitaling and ○○ Distribution, a school meal service company.

(a) At ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 201: (a) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 200; (b) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 300; (c) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 200; (d) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 30; (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 200; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 30; (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 40; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 20; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 30; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 40; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 5; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 205; and (e) by means of a false tax invoice of KRW 145,749; and (g) by means of delivery;

The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the time, time, place, and method of a crime, is to limit the scope of defense against the defendant and to facilitate the exercise of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. In the case of a single comprehensive crime, even though it is not specifically specified for each act constituting part of the crime, it can be said that the crime was specified by specifying the whole time, period, and method of the crime, the victim or counterpart, the number of crimes, and the total amount of damage, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2934, Nov. 12, 1999; 2004Do4896, Oct. 12, 206). This part of the facts charged is one of the comprehensive methods of delivery and delivery of value-added tax for each of the three years from 201 to 203 and one of the three years from 204 of the comprehensive methods of delivery and distribution of the tax.

However, in the process of the instant trial, the Defendant asserts that advance payment to the ○○○○○○ Association, ○○○○○○○, and the amount of loans was erroneously included in the excessive purchase amount by each delivery company and each time. The Defendant has been engaged in defensive activities, such as the submission of the passbook transaction statement and the submission of the disposition documents, witness examination, etc. to support his own assertion. The premise of this part of the facts charged lies in a situation where it is difficult for the Defendant to see whether his defense activities specifically relate to any of the facts charged or not (or, as regards the amount of tax evaded in the year 201 through 203, the Defendant did not have the grounds for the excessive appropriation by the delivery company at the investigative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005No. 29414, Nov. 2, 204). Accordingly, it appears that the amount of the Defendant’s defense right should be easily determined for each specific element of the amount of tax evaded after prosecution.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant contests the amount of excess purchase amount appropriated by each supplier and each time, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of evaded tax, this part of the facts charged that does not specify at all the amount of excess purchase amount by each supplier and each time, is not specified in the facts charged.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the procedure for prosecution is invalid because it violates the provisions of law.

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Kim Gung-han