A. Grounds for mistake of facts

In order to implement the security surveillance system that was contracted or expected to be contracted for a long time by the Government of the United States of America, and the contract for the development and installation of the computer roll program (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the private business chain (trade name omitted) operated by the Co-Defendant 3 of the original judgment, and accordingly, the Co-Defendant 3 of the original judgment issued a tax invoice to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) to the above construction. (Trade omitted) concluded a contract for the purchase and installation of encryption equipment necessary for the above construction with the U.S. Co-Defendant 3, Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Indicted Co-Defendant 1”), and Defendant 2, who is a partner of the Co-Defendant 3 of the original judgment, was paid the instant construction in cooperation with Non-Indicted 2, and the contract was finally cancelled in proportion to KRW 80,00,000, KRW 180, KRW 80, KRW 800, KRW 80, KRW 800, the amount of the instant contract was finally cancelled.

In light of the above process of concluding the instant contract and the process of performing the contract, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have issued or received a tax invoice without supplying goods or services, and therefore, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have evaded the tax by being refunded the input tax amount through a false tax invoice. However, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of each of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

Considering the circumstances leading up to the commission of the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact

(1) According to the following facts: Defendant 2’s investigation agency and the lower court’s judgment, part of the statement at the investigative agency of the U.S.A. and the lower court’s trial court, article inspection and receipt report (No. 198 pages), and copy of the contract concluded with the U.S. 8 branch office of the U.S. court (the investigation record No. 260 pages); Defendant 1 entered into a contract with the U.S. government for the supply of surveillance camera and security surveillance systems to the U.S. military base from 202 to 04 U.S. government; Defendant 1 entered into a contract with the U.S. government for each of the following reasons: (a) Nonindicted Co. 1 entered into an integrated contract with the U.S. government for the supply of 29 U.S. government services on January 3, 2004; and (b) Nonindicted Co. 1 entered into a contract with the U.S. government for the supply of 29 U.S. military base equipment to 29 U. government units; and (c.

D. Meanwhile, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the investigative agencies of the Defendants and the co-defendant 3 of the court below, as well as some statements in the court of the court below and the court of the court below, the investigation report (in the face of No. 431 of the investigation record), the statement of passbook (in the face of No. 195 of the investigation record), and the copy of the original account of the non-indicted 1 corporation

㈎ (상호 생략)은 2002. 5. 9. 원심공동피고인 3이 게임기 및 전자부품 도소매, 게임기프로그램 개발 등을 사업의 종류로 하여 설립한 개인사업체로, 이 사건 계약 체결 이전에는 감시카메라 등의 설치 공사를 하거나 보안감시프로그램을 공급한 바가 없었다.

㈏ 원심공동피고인 3은 피고인 2와 각자 게임기 수리나 조립 등 주문을 받으면 같이 일해주고 수익의 일정부분을 주문받은 사람으로부터 받아가는 형태로 동업을 하였으며 이 사건 계약도 피고인 2의 제의에 따라 위와 같은 형태의 동업으로 이루어진 것이라는 취지로 진술하고 있으나, 이 사건 계약 체결 이전에 위와 같은 동업 약정에 따라 어떠한 일을 하고 수익을 분배하였는지에 대하여는 원심공동피고인 3이나 피고인 2 모두 언급이 없다.

㈐ 피고인 2는 공소외 1 회사의 대표이사인 피고인 1의 동생으로 2002. 12.경부터 2003. 3.경[사법경찰리 작성의 피고인 2에 대한 진술조서(수사기록 제42면)에 의하면 2003. 11.경]까지 공소외 1 회사에서 근무하면서 미군부대의 보안시스템 유지보수 업무를 맡아 왔으며, 주한미군 기지에 감시카메라 등을 설치하는 계약에도 관여해왔다.

㈑ 공소외 1 회사는 2004. 5. 18.부터 2004. 6. 18.까지 (상호 생략)에게 현금으로 지급하였다는 579,400,000원 외에도 2004. 5. 25.부터 2004. 7. 21.까지 사이에 900,000,000원 이상을 원심공동피고인 3의 계좌에 입금하였으나, 위 돈의 대부분은 입금 당일 다시 피고인 2의 계좌로 이체되었가 다시 공소외 1 회사 또는 피고인 1의 계좌로 이체되었다. 2004. 5. 25. 공소외 1 회사의 계좌에서 원심공동피고인 3의 계좌로, 다시 피고인 2의 계좌로 입금된 164,829,100원은 같은 날 현금 및 자기앞수표로 출금되었는바, 피고인 2는 위 금원을 이 사건 계약 이행을 위한 인건비 및 경비 등으로 지출하였다고 하나 그 구체적인 사용내역이 밝혀져 있지는 않다. 2004. 6. 30. 공소외 1 회사의 계좌에서 원심공동피고인 3의 계좌를 거쳐 피고인 2의 계좌로 입금된 금원 중 133,600,000원은 4차례에 나뉘어 원심공동피고인 3의 계좌로 재입금되었는데, 원심공동피고인 3의 계좌에는 입금자 명의가 8TH ARMY로 되어 있다. 2004. 6. 30. 및 2004. 7. 21. 공소외 1 회사의 계좌에서 원심공동피고인 3의 계좌를 거쳐 피고인 2의 계좌로 입금된 금원 중 합계 285,722,715원은 수차례에 나뉘어 다시 공소외 1 회사의 계좌로 재입금되었는데, 공소외 1 회사 계좌에는 입금자 명의가 US AIR FORCE 또는 US ARMY로 되어 있다(피고인들은 이와 같은 이례적인 자금의 흐름에 대하여 납득할만한 해명을 하지 못하고 있다).

㈒ (상호 생략)은 이 사건 계약 체결 이전에는 대부분의 경우 세금계산서를 발행하거나 매출 및 매입 신고를 함이 없이 사업을 운영해왔고, 이 사건 계약의 이행과 관련하여서도 케이블 등 부품 구매 등에 관하여 영수증을 받아두거나 세금계산서를 교부받아 두지 아니하였다. 2004. 3.경 (상호 생략)이 직권폐업된 사실이 드러나 세무서에서 이 사건 계약에 따른 재화 및 용역의 공급이 실제로 일어났는지 여부가 문제되자, (상호 생략)은 세무서에 폐업취소를 요청하고 2004. 11.경 축소된 계약에 따라 808,600,000원을 매출로 신고하였는바, 위와 같이 자재 등 구매에 관한 세금계산서를 받아두지 못한 관계로 위 매출의 10%인 80,860,000원에 가산세를 합한 금액 전액을 납부할 의무를 부담하게 되었다.

In light of the above circumstances, it is doubtful whether Defendant 2 was engaged mainly in the establishment contract, such as surveillance camera, with the Government of the United States prior to the conclusion of the contract of this case as the representative director of the non-indicted 1, and whether Defendant 2 engaged in the business with the non-indicted 3, but it can be viewed that the contents of the contract were jointly operated by the non-indicted 1 company or the non-indicted 1 company's joint defendant 3 account. In light of the above circumstances, most of the money paid from the non-indicted 1 company to the non-indicted 1 or the non-indicted 1's account again, it is assumed that the non-indicted 2 entered into a contract with the non-indicted 1 company and the non-indicted 1 company's joint tax invoice and the non-indicted 1 company's share in the non-indicted 0 company's trade name, and the plaintiff 2 and the non-indicted 3 company's joint defendant were aware that the non-indicted 3 company's share was issued with the non-indicted 1 company's name.

• Accordingly, although the court below erred in finding Defendant 2 as a real manager (trade name omitted), it is just in finding Defendant 2 guilty of all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants, so the above grounds for appeal by the defendants are without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the motive and means of the instant crime, as shown in the records and pleadings, various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, intelligence and environment, family relationship, etc., which are the conditions for the instant sentencing, in particular, up to the trial, the Defendants did not mislead themselves, and the Defendants’ act of receiving false tax invoices cannot be said to have an adverse impact on the tax administration on the imposition and collection of value-added tax, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is deemed to be inappropriate and unreasonable, and therefore, the Defendants’ allegation in the grounds of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-cheon (Presiding Judge)